COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70349 NOLA BRISKEY : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION EDDIE BRISKEY : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MAY 15, 1997 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. D-213352 JUDGMENT : APPEAL DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellee: ROBERT I. ZASHIN, ESQ. JACOB A.H. KRONENBERG, ESQ. Zashin, Rich & Satula JANET L. KRONENBERG, ESQ. 1490 Illuminating Bldg. Kronenberg & Kronenberg 55 Public Square 410 Midland Bldg. Cleveland, OH 44113-1901 101 Prospect Avenue, W. Cleveland, OH 44115-1092 - 2 - PATTON, J. The domestic relations court granted plaintiff-appellant Nola Briskey ("plaintiff") and defendant-appellee Eddie Briskey ("defendant") a divorce. Plaintiff appeals the decision of the domestic relations court based on its failure to equitably divide the marital assets, award spousal support, and award the correct amount of attorney fees. The matter was heard by a referee on July 22, 1993 and, after a six month interim because defendant changed attorneys, concluded on February 24, 1994. A total of seventeen days were spent at trial. Both parties filed objections to the referee's report which were subsequently overruled. The trial court then issued its judgment entry, on February 15, 1996 approving the referee's report. The parties now appeal from the order of the trial court. Plaintiff assigns fourteen errors and defendant, as cross- appellant, assigns two errors. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the judgment appealed from does not contain a complete division of the marital assets. The trial court heard evidence concerning the parties' bank accounts. The evidence revealed the parties had several accounts. Three of the accounts were divided equally by the trial court. However, no final determination was made regarding five other - 3 - accounts. In its entry, the trial court ordered the parties' attorneys to decide whether the accounts were duplicative or genuine. If the accounts were genuine then the attorneys were to determine whether there were any funds remaining in these accounts. If the attorneys discovered funds in the account, then defendant was to remit to plaintiff one-half the opening balance in each account. The referee made similar findings in her report and then made the following comment: "The referee is well aware that to re- quire the parties to garner information to divide as yet unknown opening balances is not the ideal way to effect a division of proper- ty, however this procedure is designed to produce a fair result in light of the dearth of information available." In addition, the referee and trial court both attached an appendix to their respective report and judgment entry. This appendix lists eleven of the parties' bank accounts but does not give opening balances for five of the accounts: "APPENDIX The bank accounts on Joint Exhibit 2: Institution Account No. Date Opened Opening Bal. Exhibit 1. Cardinal 0-37-66-190517 9/27/91 $10,500.00 30 2. Cardinal 0-37-66-190525 9/27/91 1,000.00 26 3. First Nat. 480401263-3 9/27/91 ? 14 4. Society 005727055 9/19/91 5,000.00 13 - 4 - 5. First Nat. 469401136-4 1/25/92 ? 28 6. Cardinal 04660110833 1/25/92 2,700.00 27 7. Cardinal 03760190752 9/27/92 3,700.00 25 8. First Nat. 469400758-6 1/25/92 ? 29 9. First Nat. 04666190508 1/25/92* 8,175.00 24 Accounts on Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 which do not appear on Joint Exhibit B: 10. First Nat. "Wall Street Ckg." 480-4004572 9/27/91 11. First Nat. "1st Money Mkt." 480-4012641 9/27/91 *This date is September 27, 1991 on Joint Exhibit B. Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 indicates that date is not correct. (See report at page 6)." The record contains neither documentation of the amount of funds remaining in these five accounts nor whether the accounts are genuine. Also, the judgment entry is vague regarding the distribu- tion of the funds remaining in the accounts. The entry merely states that the unknown values in the accounts are to be determined at some future time, but no time limitations are provided. The result is that the findings of the trial court are vague and speculative about the division of marital assets. Consequently, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B), we do not have a final appealable order. Safranek v. Safranek (February 2, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 66635, unreported (trial court's order omitting the possible amount of arrearages owed by husband not a final order). See Smith v. Smith - 5 - (June 3, 1988), Clark App. No. 2433 (trial court's order as to child support lacked a specific amount and simply ordered informa- tion necessary to the establishment of a specific amount of support). This is not a final appealable order and thus this court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of the case. Appeal dismissed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. 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. NAHRA, P.J. 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 .