COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 75202 KOLICK & KONDZER : : ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION JAMES A. MADONIA : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : DECEMBER 17, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Rocky River Municipal Court : Case No. 97 CVF 1138 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: KIMBERLEY A. ALDRICH Attorney at Law Kolick & Kondzer 24500 Center Ridge Road, #175 Westlake, Ohio 44145 For defendant-appellant: JAMES A. MADONIA, pro se 4758 Ridge Road Box 158 Brooklyn, Ohio 44144 PER CURIAM: -2- Appellant filed an appeal of the trial court's entry granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. For the reasons that follow, this appeal is dismissed. On July 31, 1997, appellee Kolick & Kondzer filed a complaint in the Rocky River Municipal Court seeking legal fees incurred by appellant James Madonia. Appellant had sought representation from appellee following a lawsuit filed against him by Municipal Micro Computer Systems, Inc. ( Municipal Micro Computer ). Municipal Micro Computer sought a monetary judgment against appellant arising from a contract entered into between the parties. Appellant met with Rita Jarrett, an attorney with appellee. Following the meeting, Ms. Jarrett wrote a letter to appellant memorializingthe parties' agreement, which provided for an hourly fee basis of $110 and acknowledged appellant's payment of a $200 retainer fee. Appellant signed the letter, evidencing his acqui- escence to the terms of the agreement. Prior to a trial in the dispute with Municipal Micro Computer, appellant signed a settlement agreement with Oscar O. Kniceley, d.b.a. Municipal Micro Computer. The record reveals that during the course of appellee's representation of appellant, appellant incurred legal fees in the amount of $3,413.00. He has paid $251.50, leaving a balance owed of $3,161.50. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no issue of material fact remained to be litigated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee and entered judgment against appellant in the sum of $3,161.50, plus -3- interest at the rate of 10 percent from December 23, 1993 and court costs. Appellant timely filed his appeal of the trial court's entry granting summary judgment in favor of appellee.1 Although appellant purports to appeal the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in appellee's favor, he argues only that Municipal Micro Computer breached its contract with appellant in the underlying action. Thus, appellant is apparently attempting to improperly use the appeal process to now dispute the settlement entry that he entered into on December 15, 1993. This court has previously addressed a similar situation and stated: This type of "bootstrapping" to wit., the utilization of a subsequent order to indi- rectly and untimely appeal a prior order (which was never directly appealed) is proce- durally anomalous and inconsistent with the appellate rules which contemplate a direct relationship between the order from which the appeal is taken and the error assigned as a result of that order. See, Appellate Rules 3(D), 4(A), 5 and 16(A)(3). State v. Church (Nov. 2, 1995), Cuyahoga Cty. App. No. 68590, unre- ported; 1995 WL 643794. Since the Appellate Rules do not permit appellant's untimely filing of an appeal of the December 15, 1993 settlement agreement, this appeal is dismissed. 1 Appellant's sole assignment of error states: Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff. -4- This cause is dismissed. 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 Rocky River Municipal 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. __________________________________ TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE __________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE __________________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY, 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 .