COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73454 FRANK KUBICKI, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON, ET AL. : : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. CV-309283 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants: THOMAS P. O'DONNELL (#0002462) McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A. 700 Skylight Office Tower 1600 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454 For Defendant-Appellee, ROBERT J. SINDYLA (#0024344) City of North Royalton: Law Director City of North Royalton 7425 Royalton Road North Royalton, Ohio 44133 For Defendant-Appellee, STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES J. Timothy McCormack, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Cuyahoga County Auditor: TIMOTHY KOLLIN (#0030062) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Courts Tower-Eighth Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -ii- For Defendant-Appellee, LISA MEHRINGER (#0037180) City of Cleveland, Assistant Director of Law Division of Water City of Cleveland Law Department 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For Amicus Curiae, KEVIN P. WEILER (#0008987) City of Broadview Heights: Weiler & Weiler, Co., L.P.A. Law Director City of Broadview Heights 8920 Brecksville Road Brecksville, Ohio 44141 SPELLACY, J.: Plaintiffs-appellants Frank Kubicki, Henry Papilli and the Committee for Fair Sewer Rates (collectively appellants ) appeal from the trial court's orders denying appellants' motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee City of North Royalton ( North Royalton ). We find that this court lacks jurisdiction to review -2- appellants' assignments of error, as appellants have failed to appeal from a final appealable order. Therefore, and for the reasons that follow, the instant appeal is dismissed. The pleadings demonstrate that on May 28, 1996, appellants filed a complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. In short, appellants sought an order from the trial court declaring invalid and enjoining the enforcement of a North Royalton ordinance consolidating the city's three formerly independent sewer districts. In their complaint, which was amended on June 12, 1996, appellants sought relief against North Royalton, the Attorney General of Ohio, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District ( NEORSD ), the Cuyahoga County Auditor ( the Auditor ), and the City of Cleveland's Division of Water ( Cleveland ). The Attorney General and NEORSD were eventually dismissed from this case. On December 9, 1996, appellants filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 14, 1997, North Royalton also filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied appellants' motion for summary judgment, and, on October 6, 1997, issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of North Royalton. The trial court's summary judgment orders did not indicate the disposition of the Auditor or Cleveland as defendants, nor did it carry the requisite "no just reason for delay" language. In addition, the trial court failed to expressly declare the respective rights and obligations of the parties to this action. It is well established that a trial court fails to fulfill its -3- function in a declaratory judgment action by granting summary judgment without expressly declaring the parties' respective rights and obligations. See Waldeck v. North College Hill (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 189, 190; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (Mar. 3, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65539, unreported. In Nickschinski v. Sentry Ins. Co. (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 185, 189, this court stated: An action which seeks the declaration of rights and obligations is not the type of action ideally suited to disposition by summary judgment. Therefore, "'* * * [a]s a general rule, a court fails to fulfill its function in a declaratory judgment action when it disposes of the issues by journalizing an entry merely sustaining or overruling a motion for summary judgment without setting forth any construction of the document or law under consideration. * * *'" Id., citing Waldeck, supra, 24 Ohio App.3d at 190, quoting Kramer v. W. Am. Ins. Co. (Oct. 6, 1982), Hamilton App. Nos. C-810829 and 810891, unreported. The trial court's order granting North Royalton's motion for summary judgment in the case sub judice does not expressly declare the rights and duties of the parties. While the trial court's order, dated October 6, 1997, reveals an attempt by the court to make such a declaration in favor of North Royalton, the pronouncement is unspecific and fails to adequately inform the parties of their respective rights and obligations. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the instant case lacks a final appealable order. Therefore, pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B) and R.C. 2505.02, this court is deprived of jurisdiction in this -4- matter. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. It is so ordered. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants their 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. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, P.J. and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. -5- 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(B) 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 .