COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72639 MARIA JOSE PUJANA-GRGUREVIC : : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : MIROSLAV GRGUREVIC, M.D. : OPINION : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 7, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. D-221985 JUDGMENT: APPEAL DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: ______________________________ APPEARANCES: Plaintiff-Appellant: Defendant-Appellee: JOYCE E. BARRETT LARRY I. MADORSKY 800 Standard Building 2101 Richmond Road 1370 Ontario Street 39 LaPlace Mall Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Beachwood, Ohio 44122 -2- O'DONNELL, TERRENCE, P.J.: Maria Jose Pujana-Grgurevic appeals from a judgment of the Domestic Relations Court, which granted an ex parte motion for extended visitation thereby giving her ex-husband Miroslav Grgurevic possession of their son, Miroslav A. Grgurevic for a six week summer period from June 8, 1997 until July 19, 1997. Appellant argues the court abused its discretion by granting the ex parte order in violation of local rules of the Domestic Relations Court. Appellee has not filed a brief. Upon consideration, we have determined that because the issues on this appeal are moot, we reluctantly dismiss this appeal. The record here reveals that the parties were married on August 24, 1977, and had two children, Marco, born April 12, 1980, and Miroslav, born January 31, 1985. On November 29, 1995, the court granted divorces to the appellant and the appellee. The divorce decree agreement provided appellant as the residential parent of Miroslav and the appellee as the residential parent of Marco. On May 30, 1997, appellee filed an ex parte motion to extend visitation so that he could spend six weeks of the summer with his son, Miroslav, from June 8, 1997 to July 19, 1997. On the same day, the court granted the motion. On June 5, 1997, the appellant moved to vacate the order, which has not been ruled upon, and on June 6, 1997 filed a motion to stay in our court which we denied. -3- Appellant now appeals and raises one assignment of error which states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR EXTENDED VISITATION ON AN EX PARTE BASIS. The appellant contends the court abused its discretion when it granted the appellee's ex parte motion to extend visitation with Miroslav, arguing that she did not receive notice or service of the motion or have an opportunity to oppose it. The appellee has not filed an appellate brief. The issue then presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the appellee's ex parte motion. While the court may have abused its discretion in granting the ex parte extended visitation order in violation of Local Rule 17(A) of the Rules for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas-- Division of Domestic Relations, we are unable to grant relief to appellant because the period of visitation has now passed and the issue is now moot. See Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237. Appeal dismissed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DIANE KARPINSKI, J., and LEO M. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR PRESIDING 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 .