COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72239 ROSEANNE RUNDLE : : ACCELERATED DOCKET PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND JAMES RUNDLE : : OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : : PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 6, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. D-175615. JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ________________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: Roseanne Rundle, pro se 1400 Crestline, Apt. 228 Cleveland, Ohio 44109 For Defendant-appellant: John Paul Oreh, Esq. 1500 Hanna Building 1422 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2001 2 PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). In the appeal sub judice, defendant-appellant-father James W. Rundle appeals from the February 27, 1997, denial of his Motion for Relief From Judgment. For the reasons adduced below, we dismiss the notice of appeal as untimely. A review of the record on appeal indicates that appellant and his spouse, plaintiff-appellee-mother Roseanne M. Rundle1, were divorced in 1987, with custody of the two minor children being awarded to the mother and the father being ordered to pay child support. Thereafter, the eldest daughter was emancipated in 1994 and, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the court ordered an adjustment in father's child support arrearage. On October 31, 1995, the Magistrate Nelson held a hearing to determine the emancipation of the younger daughter and possible support arrearage or overpayments. Following the hearing, the Magistrate recommended in her report of December 11, 1995, that the remaining daughter be emancipated as of June 11, 1995, and also determined that the father was in arrears on spousal support in the amount of $24,199.79. The father filed his objections to the Magistrate's report on December 20, 1995. 1Appellee has not filed an appellate brief in this matter. 3 The trial court affirmed the Magistrate's report on April 2, 1996. See Journal Vol. 2773, pages 772-775. No direct appeal from this final order was filed by the father. Instead, the father, on September 26, 1996, filed a Motion for Relief From Judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (4) and (5), generally alleging that the motion was timely and that the arrearage calculation by the court was erroneous. Without opinion, the trial court denied the Motion for Relief From Judgment on February 27, 1997. The notice of appeal from that denial was filed on March 26, 1997. Prior to addressing the three assignments of error presented by the appellant2, each of which argue the final order of April 2, 1996, we note: App.R. 4(A) requires that an appeal be 2The three assignments of error state: I THE COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE IN ITS APRIL 2, 1996 DECISION BECAUSE THE APPELLANT MET HIS OBLIGATION UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF THE COURT DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1994. II THE COURT ERRED IN ITS APRIL 2, 1996 DECISION BECAUSE THE CALCULATION OF THE APPELLANT'S ALLEGED ARREARAGE (SIC) IS NUMERICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BASED UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PAYMENT RECORDS OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. III THE COURT ERRED IN ITS APRIL 2, 1996 DECISION BECAUSE THE DECISION CONSIDERS THE PERIOD PRECEDING A PRIOR ORDER OF COURT AND THEREFORE VIOLATES RES JUDICATA. 4 filed within thirty days of the date of the entry of the judgment appealed from. This time requirement is jurisdictional and may not be extended. Ditmars v. Ditmars (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 174, 175. Where an untimely appeal has been filed, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits, and the appeal must be dismissed. Spinell v. Ohio State Home Services, Inc. (Apr. 27, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 56327, unreported, at 2-3; Bearden v. Parks (Feb. 23, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55455, unreported, at 3-4; Morton v. Morton(1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 212, 214; Euclid Ninth Company v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, et al. (Apr. 19, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No. 47360, unreported, at 2; Heben v. Worthington(Oct. 27, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 46431, unreported, at 1-2; Ross v. Harden (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 34; Bosco v. Euclid (1974), 38 Ohio App.2d 40. Further, Civ.R. 60(B) relief is not available as a substitute for an appeal, nor can it be used to circumvent or extend the time requirements for filing an appeal. Blasco v. Mislik (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 684, 686; Lorber v. Norvelis (Aug. 31, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 57481, unreported. Spivey v. Spivey (December 9, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 61865, unreported, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 6231, at 3. Also see Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Services Bd. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 128, paragraph two of the syllabus (Civ.R. 60[B] not to be used as a substitute for a timely appeal); Colley v. Bazell (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 243, 245; Haynes v. Oviatt (July 11, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58915, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS, at 2. The record is clear in this case. The appellant failed to file a timely appeal from the April 2, 1996 final order and improperly used the Civ.R. 60(B) motion as a substitute for a direct appeal. Absent a timely appeal, this appellate court is without jurisdiction to consider the assignments presented. 5 Appeal dismissed. 6 It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. __________________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J. __________________________________ DAVID T. MATIA, J. __________________________________ JAMES M. PORTER, 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 .