COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73987 STATE OF OHIO CSEA EX REL. : HOLLY MURPHY, : ACCELERATED : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND vs. : OPINION : WAJDI IWAIS, AKA, ANGELO : PER CURIAM IWAIS, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : AUGUST 20, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court -- : Juvenile Court Division : Case No. 9673808 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Dennis Morgan Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Anthony P. Soughan 1200 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the trial court's decision overruling his objections to the October 31, 1997 Magistrate's Decision (hereinafter October decision ). In the October decision, -2- appellant's income was found to be $35,000 per year. Although appellant was not present at the hearing, he submitted his 1996 federal income tax form listing his income at $16,241.38 to the court with his objections. In a June 2, 1997 Magistrate's Decision (hereinafter June decision ), the Magistrate had determined appellant's income to be $15,700. Appellant's sole assignment of error reads: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY OVERRULING APPELLANT'S TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND BY CALCULATING APPELLANT'S 1996 INCOME AT $35,000.00 RATHER THAN THE APPROPRIATE FIGURE OF $16,241.38. Appellant claims the court abused its discretion by adopting the October decision. Appellee argues that the court did not abuse its discretion because appellant did not state with specificity his objections to the magistrate's decision, did not serve the Cuyahoga County Support Enforcement Agency ( CSEA ) with a copy of the objections, and did not appear and submit evidence regarding his income before the magistrate. Civ.R. 53(E) provides in pertinent part: (3)(b) Form of objections. Objections shall be specific and state with particularity the grounds of objection. *** (4)(b) Consideration of objections. Upon consideration of any objections, the court may adopt, reject, or modify the magistrate's decision, hear additional evidence, recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions, or hear the matter. The court may refuse to consider additional evidence proffered upon objections unless the objecting party demonstrates that with reasonable diligence the party -3- could not have produced that evidence for the magistrate's consideration. *** A trial court's decision to overrule objections to a magistrate's decision is reviewed to determined whether it abused its discretion. State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730, 654 N.E.2d 1254, 1256. An abuse of discretion is one that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. Under Civ.R. 53, appellant stated with sufficient specificity his objection to the October decision by stating that he did not make $35,000 per year and submitting his tax return. Additionally, although the CSEA was not served with appellant's objections, it did not suffer any prejudice because the trial court adopted the October decision. The October decision determined appellant's income to be over twice that found in the June decision. Without considering appellant's tax return, there is a significant difference between the determination of appellant's income in June and October without explanation. The court abused its discretion by adopting the October decision where it contained no explanation of the significant difference in appellant's income. The judgment overruling appellant's objections to the October decision is reversed and remanded. -4- This cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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 JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE 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 .