COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69813 CAROL PISANI : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : GLENN PISANI : OPINION : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 9, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Domestic Relations Court, No. D-219910. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: Carol Pisani, pro se 30 Commons Court Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 For Defendant-Appellee: Richard S. Koblentz, Esq. Peter A. Russell, Esq. 75 Public Square, Suite 1025 Cleveland, OH 44113 William J. Heine, Esq. 950 Standard Building 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 F. Patrick Rosati, Esq. 27801 Euclid Avenue, Suite 500 Euclid, OH 44132 -2- PER CURIAM: This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, the briefs and argument of counsel. Carol A. Pisani, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the decision of the trial court overruling both her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) and her motion to show cause alleging contempt of court. Plaintiff-appellant, pro se, assigns two errors for review: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY OVERRULING A MOTION FOR 60B (SIC) TO VACATE A JOURNAL ENTRY THAT WAS MADE ON MISREPRESENTED INFORMATION. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT RULED ON A NEW RESTRAINING ORDER WHEN THE PISANI DIVORCE CASE IS PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT RULED ON A MOTION THAT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN IT OVERRULED A MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND WHY THE LAWYERS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AS BEING ADJUDICATED AND RES JUDICATA (SIC) APPLIES. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR BECAUSE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE PREVIOUSLY. THE ISSUE STARTED ON 9- 20-95. For the following reasons, plaintiff-appellant's first and second assignments of error are not well taken. Plaintiff-appellant's first assignment of error involves a motion for a restraining order filed by Glenn Pisani, defendant- -3- appellant. The restraining order concerned plaintiff-appellant's attempts at attending the school events of the children. After the trial court granted defendant-appellee's motion, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment arguing the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion for a restraining order since she had previously filed an appeal concerning visitation rights with her children (case no. 67184 and 68044). Since the filing of the appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on defendant-appellee's motion, plaintiff-appellant argues the trial court erred in not only considering the motion, but also in overruling her motion for relief from judgment. It is well established that "[w]hen a case is appealed, the trial court retains all jurisdiction not inconsistent with the court of appeals' jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment." In re Kurtz-halz (1943), 141 Ohio St. 432, paragraph two of syllabus; Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff's Dept. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 43; State ex rel. Newton v. Court of Claims (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 553. Thus, matters which could in no way be effected by an appellate court's judgment remain within the trial court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff-appellant's appeal concerns the trial court's denial of visitation rights and the denial of custody. According to the trial court's order, visitation was to resume "after a period free of negative behavior" by plaintiff-appellant. Plaintiff- appellant argued on appeal that the denial of visitation was being used as a sanction for her disturbing behavior. -4- Therefore it is clear that the order being appealed by plaintiff-appellant is separate and distinct from the temporary restraining order concerning plaintiff-appellant's attempts to attend the childrens' school activities, i.e., basketball games. To hold otherwise would permit a parent who had lost or had limited visitation rights to appeal the general custody order and proceed to violate said order with impunity during the pendency of an appeal. Therefore, in keeping with the rule set forth in In re Kurtz- halz, supra, the trial court's temporary restraining order cannot be inconsistent in any manner with this court's jurisdiction over said pending appeal. Plaintiff-appellant's first assignment of error is not well taken. Plaintiff-appellant's second assignment of error concerns her motion to show cause alleging attorneys Richard Koblentz, Patrick Rosati and the guardian ad litem, William Heine, (hereinafter "the attorneys"), were in contempt of court. The contempt allegedly stems from the attorneys' refusal to provide plaintiff- appellant a check pursuant to a court order which states: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Richard S. Koblentz, William J. Heine, and F. Patrick Rosati will execute and sign all documents necessary to make the above payments from the Huntington Bank escrow account within seven (7) days of the journalization order. The trial court dismissed plaintiff-appellant's motion on the grounds of res judicata. Previously, plaintiff-appellant had filed a similar motion claiming the attorneys were in contempt of -5- the same order because they refused to provide her with a withdrawal slip enabling her to obtain the payments set forth in the court order. The court found that while the attorneys were in contempt for failure to provide access to the funds in a timely manner, they had purged their contempt by providing plaintiff-appellant with a valid withdrawal slip. The reason plaintiff-appellant was unable to secure the funds was due to a lien and two attachments which had been placed on the escrow account. Res judicata, also known as "claim preclusion," is the doctrine under which a final judgment on the merits bars a party from bringing another lawsuit based on the same claim. Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 108, paragraph one of syllabus. Res judicata extends to bar not only claims which actually were litigated, but "every question which might properly have been litigated." Stromberg v. Bratenahl Bd. of Edn. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 98; Jackson v. Lou Cohen, Inc 91992) 84 Ohio App.3d 693. In this case, plaintiff-appellant argues the claim is a new issue as it involves a promise made to her by one of the attorneys for a "check" as opposed to a "withdrawal slip." First, we believe the issue as to whether the attorneys have or have not complied with the court order is one that has already been adjudicated by the trial court. Second, from a review of the transcript supplied by plaintiff-appellant, we find no merit -6- to her assertions that a promise to supply a check was even made. For these reasons, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff-appellant's motion to show cause alleging contempt based upon the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff-appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken. 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 Domestic Relations Court 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. DAVID T. MATIA, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE 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 .