COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72521 IN THE MATTER OF: ALFRED : ACCELERATED COLEMAN, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION : : : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : DECEMBER 18, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court -- : Juvenile Court Division : Case No. 9370254 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Howard P. Kasdan 1920 Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellant, Jeffrey H. Slavin Millie Harris: 75 Public Square, Suite 1225 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: This accelerated appeal follows appellant's, Millie Harris' petition for child support from appellee, Alfred Coleman. Appellant claimed that appellee never supported their two children from 1977 through 1982 and from 1989 through 1992. After a hearing, the Magistrate found that appellee provided support and the Juvenile Court Judge adopted the Magistrate's decision. Appellant filed objections to the Magistrate's decision which were overruled. I. Appellant's first assignment of error states: I. THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Appellant testified that appellee never supported their two children, that she worked outside the home until 1982, was on welfare from 1982 to 1989, and that she now received social security benefits. On cross-examination, she admitted that although she knew appellee was the father of two of her children, she did not name him as such in her application for welfare benefits. Appellee called four witnesses on his behalf: himself; Jessie Wilkins, his co-worker; Michelle Harris, appellant's older daughter; and his son by appellant. Appellee testified that he worked at Hough Bakery, that he would deliver $100 to appellant each week on payday, and that he was accompanied on these trips by his co-worker, Jessie Wilkins. -3- Jessie Wilkins testified that during lunch on payday he and appellee would drive to the bank, he would cash appellee's paychecks because appellee was illiterate, and while appellee drove to appellant's home Wilkins would place $100 of appellant's pay into an envelope to be delivered to appellant. Michelle Harris and Lavelle Coleman testified; however, no transcript of their testimony was available. Appellant claims that their testimony contradicted appellant's and Wilkins' testimony as to the amount of money delivered and the time of day the money was delivered. The Magistrate's decision states appellee provided credible and satisfactory evidence that appellee contributed regularly for the care and support of his children. An appellate court will not overturn a decision as being against the manifest weight of the evidence absent a clear showing that no competent, credible evidence supports that decision. Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273, 1276. Underlying this reasoning is the fact that an appellate court is not in the position to properly determine factual issues as it cannot view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of proffered testimony. Id. In this case, appellant essentially argues that 1) it is implausible to believe that appellee and his coworker would sacrifice their lunch break on payday to cash their checks and then -4- drive to appellant's home to drop off support for appellee's children and 2) it is impossible to reconcile the inconsistent testimony about the amount of money delivered and when that money was delivered. Testimony by appellee and Wilkins, and presumably from appellee's son and appellant's daughter, establishes that appellant provided regular support for his children. Appellant's arguments regarding plausibility attack the credibility of the witnesses. As obviated by the Magistrate's decision, this issue was resolved in favor of appellee and his witnesses. Additionally, any discrepancy between appellee's and Wilkins' testimony as to the timing and amount of the support paid as against the testimony of the then children is reconcilable by placing the testimony in proper perspective. The events in this case began almost twenty years prior to the testimony and continued for fifteen years. For these reasons, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. II. Appellant's second assignment of error states: II. THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 53(e)(4)(b). Appellant claims the Juvenile Court Judge did not meaningfully review the Magistrate's decision. However, as competent, credible evidence supported the Magistrate's decision, see Part I, supra, and as appellant failed to request specific findings of fact by the -5- Magistrate, appellant is unable to show that the Judge did not review the Magistrate's decision. Appellant cites as proof of a lack of review the fact that this case was heard by Magistrate Menzies and the court's Judgment Entry adopting and approving the decision stated that it was prepared by Magistrate McMillen. In light of the fact that the Judgment Entry contains the proper case number and that a subsequent Judgment Entry corrects the error as being a clerical error, we find appellant did not demonstrate that the Judge did not meaningfully review appellant's objections to the decision. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is not overruled. Judgment affirmed. -6- 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 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 TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE *ROBERT E. HOLMES, JUSTICE (*SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: ROBERT E. HOLMES, RETIRED JUSTICE OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT) 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 .