COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69795 CAROL A. PISANI : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION GLENN PISANI : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 18, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION CASE NO. D-219910 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: CAROL A. PISANI, PRO SE 30 COMMON COURT CHAGRIN FALLS, OHIO 44022 For Defendant-Appellee: RICHARD S. KOBLENTZ (#0002677) PETER A. RUSSELL (#0062208) KOBLENTZ & KOBLENTZ 75 PUBLIC SQUARE, SUITE 1025 CLEVELAND, OH 44113 WILLIAM J. HEINE (#0017448) 1370 ONTARIO STREET 950 STANDARD BUILDING CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 PATRICK ROSATI (#Z00008642) 27801 EUCLID AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44132 - 2 - SPELLACY, C.J.: Plaintiff-appellant Carol Pisani ("appellant") is appealing the trial court's orders overruling her motions to vacate filed September 7, 1995; September 8, 1995; and October 10, 1995. Appellant assigns the following five errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY OVERRULING A MOTION FOR 60B TO VACATE A JUDG- MENT. IT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO GRANT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO HOLD A HEARING UPON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION WITHOUT HAVING A BRIEF AND OPPOSITION FROM THE OPPOSING PARTY. IT WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO OVERRULE THE MOTION WITHOUT AN OPPOSITION. IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE VALID DEFENSE WHICH CONSTITUTES A GROUND FOR RELIEF OF THE JUDGMENTS. V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN STATING THE CASE WAS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF THE COURT WERE NOT ISSUES PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THAT COURT AND THAT IS WHY THE REMAND WAS DENIED. Finding appellant's appeal lacks merit, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. I. The issues presented before this court arise from a divorce dispute between appellant and defendant-appellee Glenn Pisani. Although the trial court has granted a divorce to the parties, a number of issues remain to be resolved. - 3 - The issues which are the subject of this appeal arise from three separate motions to vacate filed by appellant on September 7, 1995; September 8, 1995; and October 10, 1995. On September 7, 1995, appellant filed a motion to vacate the property report filed by Referee Mary LoPresti on July 26, 1994. Appellant, however, had previously filed an appeal regarding this same report, App. No. 68044. On October 2, 1995, appellant filed with this court a motion to remand so that the trial court could rule on its Civ.R. 60(B) motion filed on September 7, 1995. This court, however, on November 6, 1995, denied appellant's motion. On October 6, 1995, the trial court overruled appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, stating that "the issues raised in the motion are on appeal to the Court of Appeals and this court therefore lacks jurisdiction." (Jounal Entry, October 6, 1995). Further, this court has recently affirmed the report of the referee in Pisani v. Pisani (January 25, 1996), Cuy. App. Nos. 67814 and 68044, unreported. On October 5, 1994, appellant alleged that Richard S. Koblentz, William J. Heine, and F. Patrick Rosati violated their duties as escrow agents for appellant's escrow account by failing to comply with the court's order requiring them to execute and sign all documents necessary to make appellant's account available within seven days. In particular, appellant argues that the above individuals were in contempt for failure to execute the necessary documents. - 4 - In its judgment entry filed on September 5, 1995, the trial court, recognizing that Richard Koblentz, William Heine, and F. Patrick Rosati were initially in violation of the Court's order, held that said individuals purged themselves of any contempt when they subsequently complied with the court's order by executing a withdrawal slip and notifying appellant's counsel of their compliance. (Judgment Entry, September 5, 1995). On September 7, 1995, appellant appealed the September 5, 1995, decision of the trial court, Case No. 69522; and on September 8, 1995, appellant filed with the trial court a motion to vacate the September 5, 1995, judgment entry. The trial court, on October 6, 1995, overruled appellant's motion to vacate stating that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. And, on October 10, 1995, appellant filed a motion to vacate the ruling of the trial court. On March 14, 1996, the September 5, 1995, decision of the trial court was affirmed by this court in Pisani. v. Pisani (March 14, 1996), Cuy. App. No. 69522, unreported. II. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying her Civ.R. 60(B) motions for relief from judgment filed on September 7, 1995; September 8, 1995; and October 10, 1995. The trial court overruled each of appellant's motions based on its rationale that appellant's pending appeals in this court divested it of jurisdic- tion. - 5 - The initial issue presented before this court is whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment when an appeal from the same judgment is pending. In Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 141, the Supreme Court held that an appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction to consider Civ.R. 60(B) motions for relief from judgment. Id., at 147; State ex rel. East Mfg. Corp. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 179, 18l, citing Klinginsmith v. Felix (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 147, with approval. Jurisdiction may be conferred on the trial court only through an order by the reviewing court remanding the matter for consideration of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Howard, 70 Ohio St.3d at 147. In the case sub judice, appellant filed her notices of appeal before the trial court had an opportunity to rule on her motions for relief from judgment. The notices of appeal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to vacate the judgments challenged on appeal. Dempsey v. Chicago Title Ins. (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 90, 94. Furthermore, appellant's motion to this court to remand her case to the trial court for a ruling on her Civ.R. 60(B) motion filed on September 7, 1995, was denied on November 6, 1995. Therefore, the trial court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of each of appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motions. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. - 6 - Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PATRICIA BLACKMON, J. and JOSEPH J. NAHRA, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY CHIEF JUSTICE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time .