COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70132 BOBBIE WASHINGTON : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION JAMES WASHINGTON : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. D-182416 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: ELANA TUROFF LURIE, ESQ. GEOFFREY L. OGLESBY, ESQ. 20320 Farnsleigh Road 540 Buchanan Street, Suite C Shaker Heights, OH 44122 Sandusky, OH 44870 - 2 - PATTON, J. Wife Bobbie Washington and husband James Washington were divorced in 1989. Their separation agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, required husband to pay $152,500 as alimony. The parties also intended to sell the marital residence, applying the net proceeds from the sale against husband's alimony obligation. Because the parties netted $53,198.72 from the sale of the marital residence, husband's obligation under the separation totalled out to $99,301.28. The separation agreement further provided the sum be amortized over sixty months at eight percent simple interest. In 1991, a magistrate ruling on wife's motion to show cause construed the separation agreement and set husband's monthly obligation at $1655.02. Neither party objected to these findings. In 1995, another magistrate heard wife's motion to hold husband in contempt for failing to make the monthly payments and found the court erred in its 1991 entry by not expressly stating the amount of interest to be applied to the monthly payments. The magistrate corrected the 1991 journal entry to reflect the amortized interest, finding the total lump sum should have been $120,808.20, for a total monthly payment of $2013.47. Husband objected to the magistrate's report, claiming the magistrate had no authority to correct the 1991 entry. Husband characterized the correction as a modification of the alimony settlement, something he claimed the court lacked jurisdiction to - 3 - do. The domestic relations court overruled the objections and this appeal followed. Husband's sole assignment of error complains the court should not have corrected the 1991 entry to reflect simple interest due in the absence of any objections to that entry or direct appeal. This argument lacks merit. The separation agreement states: "[a]ny remaining balance due shall be paid by the Husband in equal monthly payments, amortized over a period of Five (5) years, including simple interest of 8% per year on the unpaid balance." Husband's argument fails because the 1991 magistrate's report specifically stated husband's obligation was "$1,655.02 plus interest per month plus $500 per month on the arrearage." (emphasis added). The 1995 magistrate's report did not make any substantive change in the amount of interest -- the magistrate merely amortized the amount of interest over the sixty month life of the obligation and added it to the previously expressed monthly obligation set forth in the 1991 entry. The fact that the magistrate failed to amortize interest in the 1991 entry did not remove that obligation from the husband. As a practical matter, the 1995 magistrate's report essentially corrected an omission in the 1991 report, and was therefore properly within the court's discretion under Civ.R. 60(A). Even were we to accept husband's theory that the court's modification of the 1991 entry constituted a change in the - 4 - settlement for which the court lacked jurisdiction, we would still affirm. If, as husband argues, the court could not amend its previous entry to reflect the imposition of interest, that same logic would prevent the court from issuing an entry purporting to cancel out the interest obligation set forth in the separation agreement. In other words, the same lack of jurisdiction argued by husband would prevent the court from issuing an order that would, in essence, delete the interest provision of the settlement agreement. For the foregoing reasons, the assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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 Court of Common Pleas 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. LEO M. SPELLACY, C.J. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App. R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .