COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 74146 DIANE T. SPANN : : ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : : AND BRECKSVILLE/BROADVIEW HEIGHTS : BOARD OF EDUCATION : OPINION : Defendant-Appellee : PER CURIAM : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 22, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-336333 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: KATHLEEN K.MCKINLEY, ESQ. 4150 Belden Village Street Belden-Whipple Bldg., #604 P. O. Box 35186 Canton, Ohio 44735 For Defendant-Appellee: THOMAS E. GIFFELS, ESQ. Flanagan, Blackie & Giffels Co. 20220 Center Ridge Rd., Ste. 330 Cleveland, Ohio 44116 - i - For Defendant-Appellee: SCOTT J. DEAN, ESQ. Flanagan, Blackie & Giffels Co. 55 Public Square, Ste. 1100 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Ohio Bureau of Employment CHARLETTE BUNDY, ESQ. State Office Bldg., 12th Floor 615 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: This accelerated appeal involves a determination by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ( OBES ) that appellant Diane T. Spann repay $1,960.00, which it claims she wrongfully received. OBES determined that under R.C. 4141.29(I)(1)(b) Spann, a teacher, had a reasonable assurance of employment and was barred from receiving benefits. Spann, after exhausting her administrative appeals, appealed to the trial court and the trial court upheld OBES's determination. Spann assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION DENYING APPELLANT SPANN'S UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IS UNLAWFUL, UNREASONABLE, AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. Pursuant to App.R. 11.1, our decision will be brief and in conclusory form. Consequently, this opinion will not contain a comprehensive exposition of our reasons for affirming the trial court's decision. See Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158. Spann is presently a teacher with the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Board of Education ( BBH ). During the benefit period she was substituting for BBH. On April 29, 1996, BBH notified her that her substitute position would not be available. However, she was told that her work was exemplary and she would be given first consideration for all available positions. Spann verified in her testimony to OBES that she learned of available positions immediately following the end of the school year. She began -3- interviewing four days after her last day of work and she received one of the positions for which she interviewed. The OBES determined that Spann was not entitled to the benefits she received because, at the end of the 1995-1996 school year she had a reasonable assurance of employment for the following year, which in fact she received. R.C. S4141.29(I)(1)(b) denies unemployment benefits for the period during the summer months for the employees of educational institutions when such employees are given reasonable assurance in the current academic year that employment is available for the following academic year. See University of Toledo v. Heiny (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 143. Here, BBH gave Spann a reasonable assurance of employment. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, 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 jounalized 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 .