COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 78734
REMINGER & REMINGER CO.,      :
LPA, ET AL.,                  :         ACCELERATED
                              :
     Plaintiffs-Appellees     :
                              :        JOURNAL ENTRY
     vs.                      :              AND
                              :            OPINION
ALEXANDER ATHENS, ET AL.,     :
                              :
     Defendants-Appellants    :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION                   :    APRIL 18, 2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:      :    Civil appeal from
                              :    Common Pleas Court
                              :    Case No. 385515
JUDGMENT                      :    AFFIRMED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION        :
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiffs-appellees:     Timothy D. McKinzie, Esq.
                              Kerry G. Milligan, Esq.
                              McKINZIE & ASSOCIATES
                              529 White Pond Drive
                              Akron, Ohio  44320-1123
                              Michael P. Gilbride, Esq.
                              Daniel R. Haude, Esq.
                              Brian D. Sullivan, Esq.
                              REMINGER & REMINGER CO., LPA
                              113 St. Clair Avenue, 7th Floor
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44114
                           -CONTINUED-
CONTINUED:
For defendants-appellants:    Alexander Athens, Pro Se
                              Sandra Athens, Pro Se
                              978 Cloverdale Drive
                              Medina, Ohio  44256
                               -2-
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J.:
1.        This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar
     pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the
     Cuyahoga  County Court  of Common  Pleas and  the briefs  of
     counsel. Appellants appeal the trial court's grant of partial
     summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees.
2.        The sole question before us is whether the trial  court
     erred  in granting  appellees'  motion for  partial  summary
     judgment as to  the issue of liability under a  professional
     services contract.
3.        After filing suit seeking attorney fees, appellees filed
     a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking an order from
     the trial court that a contract existed between appellants and
     appellees,  that  appellees  performed  legal  services  and
     advanced  expenses, and  that  appellees  were  entitled  to
     compensation for the services performed and expenses advanced.
4.        We find that the  trial court properly granted  partial
     summary judgment in favor of appellees.  Reviewing the motion
     for partial  summary judgment  de novo,  and construing  the
     evidence most strongly  in favor of the appellants, we  find
     that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, that
     reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that the
     conclusion is  adverse  to the  appellants.   Appellees  and
     appellants did  enter into  a contract  for legal  services,
     appellees did perform legal services before being discharged
     by appellants and appellants are liable under the  contract.
                               -3-
     Fox & Assoc. Co., L.P.A. v. Purdon (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 69.
     Therefore, appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of
     law.  Civ.R. 56(C), (D).
     Judgment is affirmed.
                               -4-
     It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants 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.
                                        MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN
                                             JUDGE
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, A.J., and
JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR.
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. 22.  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
clerk  per App.R.  22(E).   See, also,  S.Ct.Prac.R. II,  Section
2(A)(1).
 
.