COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 70669
MOHAN J. DURVE, M.D., INC.         :
                                   :
          Plaintiff-Appellee       :
                                   :    JOURNAL ENTRY
     v.                            :
                                   :         AND
SHANNON OKER, ET AL.               :
                                   :       OPINION
          Defendants-Appellants.   :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                       JULY 31, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from Parma
                                   Municipal Court Case No.
                                   94 CVF 3532
JUDGMENT:                          REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            ___________________________
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:            RUTH A. GIBSON
                                   159 South Main Street
                                   Suite 518
                                   Akron, Ohio 44308
For Defendants-Appellants:         EDWARD L. BETTENDORF
                                   45 Erieview Plaza
                                   Suite 1400
                                   Cleveland, Ohio 44114
O'DONNELL, J.:
     Michael R.  Oker, his daughter  Shannon, and their  counsel,
                                2
appeal from a judgment of the Parma Municipal Court which imposed
$1,550.00 in sanctions against Michael Oker and his counsel, Edward
Bettendorf, for  frivolous conduct,  arising from  the filing  of
counterclaims against Mohan J. Durve, M.D., Inc. in connection with
the doctor's suit to collect a $154.30 medical bill from  Shannon
Oker.
     This is the second time  this case has been appealed to  our
court.   In the  first appeal,  the trial  court granted  summary
judgment  in favor  of  Durve on  the  $154.30 complaint  and  on
counterclaims filed by the appellants against Durve for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy,
and  violation of the  fair debt collection  act, which arose  in
connection with Durve's  efforts to collect  a medical bill  from
Shannon.  We held the  trial court erred when it granted  summary
judgment on the fair debt collection claim and we further declared
the  issues  on  the remaining  counterclaims  to  be  moot,  and
indicated,  The trial court will revisit these issues upon remand
in light of this opinion.
     On April 17, 1996, almost three months prior to the issuance
of that opinion, the trial court adopted the recommendations of a
magistrate and imposed $1,550.00 in sanctions against Michael Oker
and Edward L. Bettendorf for frivolous conduct in prosecuting these
counterclaims.   The instant appeal is  from the judgment of  the
trial court which  imposed the sanctions.   Appellants have  also
filed a Civ.R. 60(B) Motion for Relief from judgment, but the trial
court stayed that motion pending our disposition of this appeal.
                                3
     On appeal, appellants have raised three assignments of error
which we have considered.  The first two allege trial court error
in granting plaintiffs' motion for frivolous conduct and the third
alleges error in staying the motion for relief from judgment.
     Since our court has previously determined that questions  of
fact exist regarding the issues raised and that each claim is to be
revisited, prosecuting the counterclaim  by Michael Oker and  his
counsel cannot form the basis of a frivolous conduct claim.  Hence,
the order of the trial court imposing sanctions on that basis  is
vacated. In accordance with this disposition, we need not consider
the third assignment.  See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
     Accordingly,  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court  imposing
sanctions for  frivolous conduct is  vacated, and  the matter  is
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the two opinions issued by our court in connection with this case.
     So ordered.
                                4
     This cause is reversed  and remanded to the lower court  for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
     It is, therefore, considered that said appellant(s) recover of
said appellee(s) costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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.
PORTER, P.J., and
KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR
                                             JUDGE
                                        TERRENCE O'DONNELL
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
.