COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 72097 ACCELERATED DOCKET JOANNE M. WAKEN CUDA : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION JOHN CHRISTOPHER CUDA : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellant : : : December 18, 1997 DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. D-213809 : JUDGMENT : Dismissed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: JOSEPH A. GAMBINO, ESQ. JOHN CHRISTOPHER CUDA, PRO SE 11221 Pearl Road 558 Vineland Road Strongsville, OH 44136 Bay Village, OH 44140 -2- PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Loc. R. 25, the records from the court of common pleas and the briefs. This case arises from a complaint for divorce filed by plaintiff-appellee Joanne Cuda against defendant-appellant John Cuda. On June 23, 1994, the domestic relations court dissolved the marriage and ordered defendant to make child support payments in support of the couples' minor child. Defendant filed a motion requesting a recalculation and decrease in child support. On December 14, 1995 a magistrate held a hearing and recommended modifying the child support award by ordering defendant to pay $294.86. Approximately two weeks later, defendant filed objections to the magistrate's recommendation. Subsequently, on August 5, 1996, the domestic relations court issued an order sustaining the objections in part and denying them in part. No direct appeal from this final order was filed by defendant. Instead, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). In this motion, defendant argued a child support computation worksheet was not used, calculations determining child support exceeded the guidelines set forth in R.C. 3113.215, and the child support arrearages were calculated erroneously. On February 14, 1997, the domestic relations court denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment. On February 24, 1997 defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. -3- Defendant presents two arguments on appeal. First, defendant argues the domestic relations court erred by failing to prepare and make part of the record a child support computation guideline. Second, defendant argues the domestic relations court erred by deviating from the child support guidelines and worksheet without making findings of fact supporting that determination. The record indicates defendant failed to file a timely appeal from the August 5, 1996 final order and improperly used the Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a substitute for a direct appeal. Absent a timely appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the assignments of error presented. See Rundle v. Rundle (Nov. 6, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 72239; and Brown v. City of Cleveland Civil Service Commission (Nov. 24, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 44605. Appeal dismissed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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 Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate -4- pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. John T. Patton, Judge James M. Porter, Presiding 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 reconsidera- ation 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 .