COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO  EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 82421
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.        :
DANNY E. ATWATER              :
                              :
               Relator        :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :
                              :              and
                              :
    vs.                       :            OPINION
                              :
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,        :
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION   :
                              :
               Respondent     :
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Writ of Prohibition
                                   (Motion No. 346142)
JUDGMENT:                          WRIT DISMISSED
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            April 10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                  DANNY E. ATWATER, pro se
                              21598 Ellacott Parkway
                              Apt. X104
                              Warrensville Heights, Ohio 44128
For Respondent:               WILLIAM D. MASON
                              Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                              RENEE A. BACCHUS, Assistant
                              1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                                -2-
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
     Danny E. Atwater, the relator, seeks a writ of prohibition to
vacate a judgment of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court,
Domestic Relations Division, in Atwater v. DeLaine, Case No. D-
265659, that clarified the original judgment entry of divorce.   The
domestic relations court has filed a motion to dismiss, which we
grant for the following reasons.
     In order for this court to issue a writ of prohibition,
Atwater must demonstrate that: 1) the domestic relations court is
about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; 2) the exercise
of such power is unauthorized by law; and 3) the denial of the writ
of prohibition will result in injury for which there exists no
other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex
rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 686 N.E.2d 267;
State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio
St.3d 184, 718 N.E.2d 908.   This court has also established that:
          "A two-part test must be employed by this Court in
     order to determine whether a writ of prohibition should
     be issued.   State ex rel. East Mfg. Corp v. Ohio Civ.
     Rights Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 179; Dayton Metro
     Hous. Auth. v. Dayton Human Relations Council (1992), 81
     Ohio App.3d 436.   Initially, we must determine whether
     the   respondent   patently   and   unambiguously   lacks
     jurisdiction to proceed.   The second step involves the
     determination  of   whether  the  relator  possesses  an
     adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Natalina Food Co.
     v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 98."
State ex rel. Wright v. Registrar, Bur. of Motor Vehicles (Apr. 29,
1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 76044, at 3.
                                  -3-
     In the case sub judice, the domestic relations court possesses
the legal authority to clarify or interpret any language contained
in a divorce decree or a separation agreement.      See Uram v. Uram
(1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 96, 582 N.E.2d 1060.      See, also, Saeks v.
Saeks (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 67, 493 N.E.2d 280; Bond v. Bond
(1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 225, 590 N.E.2d 348.      Thus, the domestic
relations   court   does   not   patently   and   unambiguously   lack
jurisdiction to clarify the original judgment entry of divorce.     In
addition, Atwater has availed himself of an adequate remedy at law
vis-a-vis a direct appeal that was filed from the judgment of the
domestic relations court.     See appeal in     Atwater v. DeLaine ,
Cuyahoga App. No. 82191.   Atwater's filing of an appeal provides an
adequate remedy at law and thus prevents this court from issuing a
writ of prohibition.   State ex rel. Fenwick v. Finkbeiner (1995),
72 Ohio St.3d 457, 650 N.E.2d 896; State ex rel. LTV Steel v.
Oryshkewch (1993), 65 Ohio St.3d 462, 605 N.E.2d 30.
     Finally, Atwater has failed to support his complaint for a
writ of prohibition with an affidavit "specifying the details of
the claim"as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a).       The failure of
Atwater to provide this court with the required affidavit requires
dismissal of his complaint for a writ of prohibition.        State ex
rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077;
State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No.
70899.
                               -4-
    Accordingly, we grant the domestic relations court's motion to
dismiss.  Costs to Atwater.  It is further ordered that the Clerk
of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve upon all parties
notice of this judgment as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
    Complaint dismissed.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J. CONCURS
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. CONCURS
                                        COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY
                                              JUDGE
 
.