COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71944 ROGER HAYES, ET AL. : : ACCELERATED DOCKET PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND WALT WARD CONSTRUCTION CO. : ET AL. : OPINION : DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS : : PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 28, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. CV-215893. JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR APPELLANT. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ________________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-appellees: Bevan & Economus Dale S. Economus, Esq. James C. Watson, Esq. 10360 Northfield Road Northfield, Ohio 44067 For Defendants-appellants: James N. Harding, Esq. 653 Broadway Avenue, #204 Bedford, Ohio 44146 PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an 2 appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn..Crawford 158. Defendant-appellant Ward Construction appeals for the second time from the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs- appellees Roger Hayes and Cathy Traxler Hayes. In Hayes v. Ward Construction (Nov. 21, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69557, unreported, this court: 1) vacated the trial court's award in favor of the appellees for the sum of $22,300.011; 2) entered judgment for the appellees in the sum of $8,478; 3) found that the trial court erred in finding in favor of the appellees on the appellant's counterclaim; and 4) remanded the case to the trial court for a determination as to the sum due to the appellant on the counterclaim. Upon remand the trial court entered the following order: Motions to enter judgment granted. Upon remand from the court of appeals, the court finds in favor of deft. Walt Ward Construction Company on its counterclaim in the amount of $12,813.97. The court, having previously found in favor of pltfs. in the amount of $22,300.11, finds the net damages to pltfs. to be $9486.14. Based on the limitation imposed by the court of appeals, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of pltfs. in the amount of $8478.00 plus interest at 10% from Aug. 17, 1995. It is from this entry that the appellant files this new appeal. The appellant asserts the following assignment of error: 1Although trial court originally awarded the appellees the sum of $22,300.11, in Hayes v. Ward Construction (Nov. 21, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69557, unreported, this court inadvertently used the figure $22,300.01. Based upon our findings in the case sub judice, there is no moment to this small difference. 3 THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY ON REMAND WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. The appellant argues that the trial court disregarded this court's mandate upon remand. The appellant's argument is well taken. Absent extraordinary circumstances, an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case. Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1; State ex rel TRW, Inc. v. Jaffe (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 411. In looking at the final entry entered on remand in the case sub judice, it appears that the trial court arrived at the final award to the appellees by, in essence, re-entering judgment for appellees in the sum of $22,300.11, and subtracting the sum of $12,813.97, leaving a total due to the appellees of $9486.14 ($22,300.11-$12,813.97= $9486.14). The trial court then limited the final amount recoverable by appellees to $8,478.00, as the trial court believed this court required. The court entered final judgment for the appellees in the sum of $8,478.00. The trial court fundamentally misunderstood the directive of this court. Judgment was awarded by this court to the appellees in the sum of $8,478.00. This figure was not to be used as a limiting factor, but rather was the entire award that the appellees were entitled to on their claim. The trial court erred to the extent that it used the figure of $22,300.11, in any manner when arriving at its final award. The trial court properly followed the directive of this court 4 when it made an award for the appellant on its counterclaim. As noted supra, the court awarded the appellant the sum of $12,813.97. While the appellees attempt to find fault with this figure, no cross-appeal has been filed before this court. In order to arrive at the final judgment, the award on the complaint and the award on the counterclaim must be set-off. Since the appellant is owed $12,813.97 by the appellees on the counterclaim, and the appellees are owed by the appellant $8,478.00 on the complaint, the net award to the appellant is $4,335.97 ($12,813.97- $8,478.00= $4335.97). The appellant's assignment of error is well taken. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the appellant in the sum of $4,335.97. 5 This cause is reversed and judgment entered in favor of the appellant consistent with the opinion herein. It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee its costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate procedure. ______________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J. ______________________________ JAMES M. PORTER, J. ______________________________ ANN DYKE, J. 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 .