COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 71819
EMILY M. GARVER,                   :  ACCELERATED DOCKET
                                   :                    
                                   :    JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellant      :                  
                                   :        AND
v.                                 :             
                                   :      OPINION
THEODORE M. GARVER,                :               
                                   :     PER CURIAM
                                   :                
          Defendant-Appellee       :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                       MAY 8, 1997       
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Common Pleas Court  -- 
                                   Domestic Relations Division
                                   Case No. D-250071     
JUDGMENT:                          AFFIRMED.                 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                         
APPEARANCES:  
For plaintiff-appellant:           Joyce E. Barrett     
                                   800 Standard Building      
                                   1370 Ontario Street           
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44113        
For defendant-appellee:            John D. Zalic    
                                   6400 Pearl Road
                                   Parma Heights, Ohio  44130  
                                -2-
PER CURIAM:
     A complaint for  divorce was filed in  Mahoning county against
and served  upon  appellant  on  October 9,  1996.    Subsequently,
appellant  filed  this  action  for  divorce  in  Cuyahoga  county.
Because service was made upon appellant, the  Mahoning county court
acquired exclusive jurisdiction  of the  divorce proceedings.   See
State, ex rel.  Largent v.  Fisher (1989), 43  Ohio St.3d 160,  540
N.E.2d 239.
     Appellant  argues  that  the  Mahoning  county court  did  not
acquire jurisdiction because  the service was  not returned to  the
court until after service had been made and returned in her divorce
action  in Cuyahoga  County.   However,  service  is complete  upon
delivery.    See State  ex rel.  Largent,  supra; Rhodes  v. Valley
Greyhound Lines, Inc.  (1954)  98  Ohio App. 187,  128 N.E.2d  824,
syllabus paragraph 1  ("The service of  process and not the  return
thereon gives the court jurisdiction over the defendant."); Creager
v.  Creager (1926),  22 Ohio  App.  261, 263,  154 N.E.2d  316, 316
("Under  the  general  rule  of   lis  pendens  actual  service  is
recognized as the test for the acquirement of jurisdiction ...."). 
     Accordingly, it  was proper for  the Cuyahoga county  court to
dismiss  appellant's  action  as  the  Mahoning  county  court  had
exclusive jurisdiction over it. 
     Judgment affirmed. 
                                -3-
     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.   
                              JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE
                              TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE       
                              LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE         
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
clerk per  App.R.  22(E).    See, also,  S.Ct.Prac.R.  II,  Section
2(A)(1).
.