COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO  EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 71883
JOHN F. SEELIE                     :
                                   :         JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellant      :
                                   :              AND
       vs.                         :
                                   :            OPINION
JUDITH M. COOMBS, a.k.a.           :
Judith M. Kastelan                 :
                                   :
          Defendant-Appellee       :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                       OCTOBER 9, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from Domestic
                                   Relations Case No. D-199736
JUDGMENT:                          APPEAL DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant:           JOHN F. SEELIE, Pro Se
                                   800 Bank One Center
                                   600 Superior Avenue, East
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44114
For Defendant-Appellee:            JUDITH M. KASTELAN, Pro Se
                                   150 Manning Drive
                                   Berea, Ohio  44017
For Richard Coombs:                GUY V. NERREN
                                   75 Public Square, Suite 1320
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44113-2096
                                2
O'DONNELL, J.:
     The  within cause  having been  presented to  our court  and
argued, must be dismissed for the following reasons:
     Appellant John F. Seelie,  Esq. lacks standing to  prosecute
this appeal because he was not a party to proceedings in the trial
court.
     The record in the case reflects that appellee, Judith Coombs
Kastelan, retained appellant Seelie to represent her in connection
with her  divorce from Richard  Coombs, a  matter adjudicated  to
conclusion in the Domestic Relations Division of Common Pleas Court
and subsequently appealed on two occasions to this court.  During
pendency of  these  post-decree  proceedings,  Coombs  discharged
Seelie, but had not paid  all charges Seelie claimed were due  at
that point.   In an  effort to collect  his fee,  Seelie filed  a
Clerk's Certificate of Judgment  in Cuyahoga County indicating  a
$37,878.22 balance due and then filed to enforce the lien in  the
Mahoney County Probate Court against monies due Coombs.  That court
paid Seelie $1010, and  referred the matter back to the  Cuyahoga
County Domestic Relations Court for resolution.
     The Domestic Relations Court conducted an ex parte  hearing,
and, inter alia, decreed that no fees were due from plaintiff  to
her post-decree attorney, Seelie, and ordered that in the event of
collection, the decree shall act as res judicata in full  defense
for any claim.
     Since Seelie was not a party to the divorce case and since the
                                3
court exceeded its  jurisdiction, its  ruling regarding  Seelie's
contract claims against Coombs is a nullity.  Proper recourse  is
for Seelie to adjudicate his claims for monies due pursuant to his
contract of employment in a court of competent jurisdiction.
     Efforts taken by Seelie to appeal the order of the  Domestic
Relations Court as it affects his claim for post-decree  attorney
fees using the judgment lien number  as a case number are also  a
nullity as there is no appeal  from a judgment lien, only from  a
final order of a court.
     Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
                                4
     It is ordered  that appellee recover of appellant its  costs
herein taxed.
     A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
presiding judge~
SWEENEY, C.J., and
panel member~NAHRA, 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
.