COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73966 PENNY COSERIU : ACCELERATED CASE : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION GEORGE COSERIU : : Defendant-Appellee : PER CURIAM : -and- : : ELLEN S. MANDELL, etc. : : Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION JULY 9, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION OF THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. D-222562 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Appellant: ELLEN S. MANDELL (0012026) 75 Public Square Suite 700 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2001 For Plaintiff-Appellee: BRENT L. ENGLISH (002267 Courthouse Square, Suite 795 310 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1021 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) For Defendant-Appellee: JAMES M. WILSMAN (0005848) JOSEPH S. SIMMS (0066584) Wilsman & Schoonover 1920 Bond Court Building 1300 East Ninth Street -ii- Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1804 PER CURIAM: Appellant Ellen S. Mandell ( appellant ) appeals from the trial court's judgment entry ordering appellee Penny Coseriu to pay the remaining ad litem fees due to appellant at a rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month over a period of sixty-two months. Appellant assigns the following error for our review: THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY DATED JANUARY 12, 1998 ARE CONTRARY TO THE -2- TERMS OF THE REMAND FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE PRIOR CASES (CA. NOS. 70942 & 71041). Finding appellant's assignment of error to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On December 28, 1979, Penny Coseriu and George Coseriu were married. During their marriage, the couple had four children. On November 23, 1992, Mrs. Coseriu filed for divorce. The trial court appointed appellant as guardian ad litem for the four minor children. On June 10, 1996, the parties, through their attorneys, negotiated and prepared a settlement agreement ( In Court Agreement ). This agreement was signed by the parties, their attorneys, and appellant. The provision of the agreement pertinent to this appeal provided that appellant would be paid guardian ad litem fees in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). Specifically, the agreement provided: 9. GAL fees: $5000.00 to be paid out of escrow on closing of marital home sale. On June 18, 1996, Mrs. Coseriu filed a motion to enforce the In Court Agreement. Mr. Coseriu filed a motion to vacate the agreement on June 19, 1996. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted Mrs. Coseriu's motion to enforce the agreement and directed her attorney to prepare the judgment entry. However, the judgment entry prepared by Mrs. Coseriu's attorney did not reflect the terms of the In Court Agreement. Therefore, both appellant and Mr. Coseriu filed objections to the -3- judgment entry prepared by Mrs. Coseriu's attorney. On July 17, 1996, the trial court overruled these objections and signed the entry as the final judgment in the case without conducting a hearing. Mr. Coseriu and appellant filed separate appeals from this judgment entry. Their appeals were consolidated for our review. In Coseriu v. Coseriu (July 24, 1997), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 70972 and 71041, unreported, this court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court and vacated those portions of the judgment entry which modified the terms of the In Court Agreement. Specifically, this court directed the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the precise terms articulated in the In Court Agreement. Upon remand, Mr. Coseriu paid to appellant half of the outstanding guardian ad litem fees.1 Appellant was not paid the remaining amount of her guardian ad litem fees. On December 15, 1997, appellant filed a motion for sanctions against Mrs. Coseriu based on her failure to pay the remaining fees. A hearing on pending motions, including appellant's motion for sanctions, was held on December 23, 1997. Unfortunately, the transcript from this hearing was not made part of the appellate record. The trial court issued a judgment entry on January 12, 1998. In this entry, the trial court ordered that Mrs. Coseriu pay 1 Mr. Coseriu made a Two Thousand and Eight Hundred Dollars ($2,800.00) payment to appellant; Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) plus Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) in interest. -4- the remaining Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) in guardian ad litem fees at the rate of $50.00 per month for sixty- two months.2 On February 11, 1998, appellant filed the instant appeal. Appellant also filed an App.R. 9(D) agreed statement. However, this statement was neither agreed upon nor signed by Mrs. Coseriu or her attorney. Further, the statement was not approved by the trial court as mandated by App.R. 9(D). Therefore, this court is precluded from considering appellant's statement in our review of this appeal. II. In her sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in ordering Mrs. Coseriu to pay the remaining guardian ad litem fees at a rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month. Appellant claims that this order was not consistent with the terms of the In Court Agreement and, therefore, was contrary to our decision in Coseriu v. Coseriu (July 24, 1997), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 70972 and 71041, unreported. In Orley v. Orley (Jan. 22, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72789, unreported, this court stated: A trial court must follow the mandate of an appellate court when a case is remanded. Graham v. Graham (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 396, 400. An inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case. Nolan v. Nolan 2 In addition, the trial court ordered Mrs. Coseriu to pay Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) to appellant for guardian ad litem fees incurred since the settlement agreement, for a total of Three Thousand and One Hundred Dollars ($3,100.00). -5- (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1. The mandate of the appellate court is the law of the case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both trial and reviewing levels. Id. at 3. However, appellant had the responsibility of providing this court with a record of the facts, testimony, and evidentiary matters which were necessary to support her assignment of error. Ham v. Park (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 803, 809, citing Wozniak v. Wozniak(1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 400, 409; Volodkevich v. Volodkevich (1989), 48 Ohio App.3d 313, 314. "When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to the assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm." Ham, supra, quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199. If a partial record does not conclusively support the trial court's decision, it is presumed that the omitted portion provides the necessary support. Ham, supra, citing Wozniak, supra at 409; In re Adoption of Foster (1985), 22 Ohio App.3d 129, 131. In the instant case, we find that the trial court's order of January 12, 1998 does not follow the precise terms of the In Court Agreement. However, the trial court's order follows the intent, if not the exact detail, of the agreement. Although her fees were not paid directly out of escrow on the closing of the sale of the marital residence, appellant will be paid guardian ad litem fees in the amount Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) as provided for in the In Court Agreement. Moreover, we note that appellant failed to -6- make the transcript from the December 13, 1997, hearing part of the record. We have no choice but to presume that this transcript would have provided further support for the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant 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 Domestic Relations Division of 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, PRESIDING JUDGE TIMOTHY McMONAGLE, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This 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 -7- 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 .