[Cite as A.Y. v. E.Y., 2023-Ohio-1671.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

A.Y., :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

No. 111872

v. :

E.Y., :

Defendant-Appellee. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED IN PART

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 18, 2023 

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Domestic Relations Division

Case No. DR-20-382999

Appearances:

Rosenthal |Thurman | Lane, LLC, Adam J. Thurman, and 

Erik B. Quattro, for appellant.

Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. and Kenneth J. Cahill, 

for appellee.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

Plaintiff-appellant A.Y. appeals the trial court’s July 21, 2022 

judgment entry of divorce. For the following reasons, we affirm and remand in part.
Factual History

A.Y. and E.Y. were married on May 22, 2004, and three children were

born during the marriage: J.Y. (d.o.b. 8/19/2010), S.Y. (d.o.b. 8/8/2012), and El.Y. 

(d.o.b. 10/2/2014). All three children were born and lived in Virginia except from 

July 2019 through October 9, 2020. During that time, the family lived in Shaker 

Heights, Ohio, when E.Y. took a sabbatical from his full-time employment in 

Virginia and accepted a temporary job assignment in Cleveland, Ohio.

In July 2020, E.Y.’s full-time work in Cleveland was terminated and 

on July 31, 2020, he was offered continued employment in Cleveland one day per

week. Conflicting testimony was introduced as to whether the family intended to 

remain in Cleveland. E.Y. testified that he did not plan to remain permanently in 

Cleveland. Yet in September 2020, E.Y. and A.Y. attempted to purchase a home in 

Cleveland. Ultimately, the parties did not purchase a home in Cleveland, Ohio.

From September 23, 2020 through September 29, 2020, A.Y. was 

hospitalized for a kidney infection and a mental health evaluation. The trial 

testimony demonstrated A.Y. had a history of mental health issues. Upon discharge, 

A.Y. did not return to the marital home but sought residence at a domestic violence 

shelter. A.Y. testified to allegations of domestic violence against E.Y. and concerns 

about E.Y.’s mental health. A.Y. and E.Y. had minimal contact following A.Y.’s 

release from the hospital.

Without A.Y.’s consent, E.Y. packed the family’s belongings and, on 

October 10, 2020, he moved to Virginia with J.Y., S.Y., and El.Y. A.Y. did not have 
physical contact with the children from October 2020 through June 2021. E.Y. 

testified that on numerous occasions in December 2020 and February 2021 he 

offered to coordinate A.Y.’s visitation with the children, but she declined. The 

parties executed an interim parenting plan on June 7, 2021, whereby the parties 

agreed to regular visitation of the children with A.Y.

Prior to A.Y.’s hospitalization in September 2020, A.Y. was a stay-athome mother who was primarily responsible for the household and the care of the 

children. A.Y. homeschooled the children, took them to the doctor, and 

administered prescribed medications. A.Y. testified that the children were 

diagnosed with Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (“MCAS”), food protein-induced 

enterocolitis syndrome (“FPIES”), asthma, and various allergies that required daily 

medications and monitoring of their food intake and allergic reactions. The 

children’s medical records demonstrated that prior to the family’s move to 

Cleveland, their pediatrician, Dr. Paul Wisman (“Dr. Wisman”), referred the 

children to specialists at the University of Virginia who then prescribed the 

children’s daily medications. E.Y. testified that upon his return to Virginia, he 

conferred with Dr. Wisman and discontinued the children’s daily medications. A.Y. 

and E.Y. provided conflicting testimony as to whether the children require 

continued daily medications.

The trial testimony raised credibility issues about both A.Y. and E.Y. 

The parties presented conflicting testimony about E.Y.’s employment, his receipt of 

and declaration of income, and his behavior towards A.Y. and the children. The trial 
testimony also raised concerns about A.Y.’s mental health and how that impacted 

her decision-making process.

At the time of the trial, E.Y. resided in Virginia with J.Y., S.Y., and 

El.Y., and A.Y. continued to live in Cleveland, Ohio.

Procedural History

On October 13, 2020, several days after E.Y. returned to Virginia with 

the children, A.Y. filed a complaint against E.Y. in Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-20-

382999 seeking a divorce. On October 14, 2020, A.Y. filed an emergency motion for 

the immediate return of the children to the trial court’s jurisdiction. On November 

5, 2020, A.Y. filed a motion for temporary support. On November 17, 2020, E.Y. 

filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the trial court lacked subject-matter or 

personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, because Ohio is an inconvenient forum. 

On November 30, 2020, E.Y. filed an amended motion to dismiss with supporting 

documentation. On December 22, 2020, the trial court denied E.Y.’s motion to 

dismiss.

On December 29, 2020, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem 

(“GAL”) on behalf of the children. On April 23, 2021, the parties consented to an 

agreed judgment entry that granted A.Y. temporary spousal support.1 On May 4, 

2021, E.Y. filed another motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens that the 

court denied.

1 On April 28, 2021, E.Y. filed a complaint for divorce in Virginia that was 

subsequently dismissed.
On May 13, 2021, E.Y. filed a motion ordering A.Y. to provide her 

residential address. On June 7, 2021, the parties submitted to an interim parenting

plan. On June 15, 2021, the trial court found that A.Y. had enrolled in the Ohio 

Secretary of State’s Safe at Home Program and, in compliance with the program, the 

trial court denied E.Y.’s motion to order A.Y. to provide her residential address.

Between July 2021 and February 2022, the parties conducted 

discovery and filed various motions, and the trial court held hearings. On February 

22, 2022, A.Y. filed a motion to adopt a shared parenting plan. On March 3, 2022, 

E.Y. filed a motion for leave to file an answer and counterclaim instanter that the 

court granted. On March 10, 2022, the GAL filed his report and recommendation.

Trial commenced on March 14, 2022, and was attended by A.Y., E.Y., 

their respective counsel, and the children’s GAL. The court conducted trial on 

March 14, 2022, through March 16, 2022, March 21, 2022, through March 24, 2022, 

and April 7, 2022, through April 8, 2022. Trial testimony was presented by A.Y., 

E.Y., Dr. Matthew Mascioli (“Dr. Mascioli”), Dr. Wisman, Shaker Heights Detective 

Kurt Falke, and the GAL. Counsel submitted the deposition transcripts of relatives 

L.G. and Sc. Y. in lieu of live testimony.

On April 13, 2022, A.Y. filed a notice of change of mailing address and 

requested that the court and clerk of courts update her mailing address to Aurora 

Road in Solon, Ohio. On May 31, 2022, counsel for A.Y. and E.Y. and the children’s

GAL filed their closing arguments. On July 21, 2022, the trial court issued a 

judgment entry of divorce that addressed division of property, spousal support, 
allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, federal income tax, children’s 

health care, child support, and cash medical support. Pursuant to the divorce 

decree, the trial court designated E.Y. the residential parent and legal custodian for 

the couple’s three minor children.

On August 22, 2022, A.Y. filed a timely notice of appeal presenting 

these assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it designated 

appellee as the residential parent and legal custodian for the 

minor children.

II. The trial court erred by improperly ordering appellant to provide 

her residential address when she is enrolled in Ohio’s Safe at 

Home Program.

III. The trial court erred by improperly finding that appellee had no 

attachable income and had no assets to post a bond for the 

collection of support through the child support enforcement 

agency.

Legal Analysis 

Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities

A.Y. argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found it 

was in the children’s best interests to designate E.Y. as the residential parent and 

legal custodian for all three children. Specifically, A.Y. contends that (1) the record 

supports a finding that it was in the children’s best interests to be placed with A.Y. 

as the residential parent and legal custodian, (2) the divorce judgment entry does 

not state whether the trial court found A.Y. or E.Y. more credible; and (3) although 

the judgment entry references expert testimony, no trial witnesses were qualified as 

experts.
We review a trial court’s decision on the allocation of parental rights 

and responsibilities under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Strauss v. Strauss, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95377, 2011-Ohio-3831, ¶ 9, citing Mason v. Mason, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 80368, 2002-Ohio-6042, citing Masters v. Masters, 69 Ohio St.3d 

83, 630 N.E.2d 665 (1994). The term abuse of discretion implies that the court’s 

attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 

Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983); Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 

2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463. 

As explained in In re L.S., 152 Ohio App.3d 500, 2003-Ohio-2045, 

788 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.):

[W]here there exists competent credible evidence to support an award 

of custody, there is no abuse of discretion. * * * Davis [v. Flickinger, 77 

Ohio St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997)]. This highly deferential 

standard of review rests on the premise that the trial judge is in the best 

position to determine the credibility of witnesses because he or she is 

able to observe their demeanor, gestures, and attitude. Seasons Coal 

Co. v. Cleveland, [10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984)]. This 

is especially true in a child custody case, since there may be much that 

is evident in the parties’ demeanor and attitude that does not translate 

well to the record. Davis [at 419].

When a trial court allocates parental rights and responsibilities, it 

shall consider the R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) best interest factors:

(a) The wishes of the child’s parents regarding the child’s care;

(b) If the court has interviewed the child in chambers pursuant to 

division (B) of this section regarding the child’s wishes and concerns as 

to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning the 

child, the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court;
(c) The child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s 

parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the 

child’s best interest;

(d) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community;

(e) The mental and physical health of all persons involved in the 

situation;

(f) The parent more likely to honor and facilitate court-approved 

parenting time rights or visitation and companionship rights;

(g) Whether either parent has failed to make all child support 

payments, including all arrearages, that are required of that parent 

pursuant to a child support order under which that parent is an obligor;

(h) Whether either parent or any member of the household of either 

parent previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any 

criminal offense involving any act that resulted in a child being an 

abused child or a neglected child; whether either parent, in a case in 

which a child has been adjudicated an abused child or a neglected child, 

previously has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive or 

neglectful act that is the basis of an adjudication; whether either parent 

or any member of the household of either parent previously has been 

convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the 

Revised Code or a sexually oriented offense involving a victim who at 

the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family 

or household that is the subject of the current proceeding; whether 

either parent or any member of the household of either parent 

previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense 

involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was 

a member of the family or household that is the subject of the current 

proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission 

of the offense; and whether there is reason to believe that either parent 

has acted in a manner resulting in a child being an abused child or a 

neglected child;

(i) Whether the residential parent or one of the parents subject to a 

shared parenting decree has continuously and willfully denied the 

other parent’s right to parenting time in accordance with an order of 

the court;
(j) Whether either parent has established a residence, or is planning to 

establish a residence, outside this state.

R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

Applying the foregoing statutory requirements, which were 

referenced in the trial court’s July 21, 2022 divorce judgment entry, we conclude 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it designated E.Y. the residential 

parent and legal custodian.2 The record shows R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(b), (g), and (h) 

are not applicable to the instant case. The record demonstrates that both parents 

wanted custody of the three children, and both parents complied with the June 7, 

2021 interim parenting order. The record also demonstrates that the children had 

positive relationships with both parents and with one another, and the children were 

well-adjusted to their home, school, and community in Virginia. The record 

includes the testimony of both A.Y. and E.Y., who questioned the mental health of 

one another. The record further includes testimony about the children’s physical 

health and whether they suffered from ongoing chronic medical conditions that 

required daily medications. A.Y. testified that all three children required daily 

medical therapy whereas E.Y. testified that upon returning to Virginia and under the 

medical care of the children’s pediatrician, Dr. Wisman, he no longer provided the 

children with daily medications. The record also indicates that the children were 

2 While the divorce judgment entry did not specifically address R.C. 

3109.04(F)(1)(j), which considers whether either parent established residence outside of 

the state, the divorce judgment entry states “[t]he children are well-adjusted to their 

home, school, and community in Virginia.” That statement sufficiently indicated the trial 

court considered the relocation of E.Y. and the children to Virginia.
under the care of Dr. Wisman when they were initially prescribed the medications, 

although the prescriptions appear to have been written by medical specialists at the 

University of Virginia.

In evaluating the mental and physical health of the children, the trial

court made the following statements:

[A.Y.] testified to an extensive history of treatment of the children for 

such issues as allergies, asthma, Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis 

Syndrome (FPIES), and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). A 

review of the children’s medical records shows [sic], however, that 

there has never been a formal diagnosis of the children with MCAS. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 53-55. The Court finds it concerning that there was 

testimony suggesting that [A.Y.] had declined confirmatory testing 

when it was offered by the children’s physicians. Further, expert 

testimony at trial revealed that the children’s medical providers did not 

think that the children had MCAS or the many allergies that [A.Y.] 

claimed that they had. These experts testified that the children are, for 

the most part, healthy and thriving.

July 21, 2022 Judgment Entry, p.5.

The medical documents contained in the record indicate that the 

children were treated for several ailments throughout their young lives. The 

University of Virginia Health System medical records of El.Y., J.Y., and S.Y., marked 

as Plaintiff’s exhibit Nos. 53 through 55 respectively, included references that A.Y. 

reported that the children were diagnosed with MCAS, but the records do not reflect 

a formal diagnosis of that condition. Notations within the medical records included

statements that the doctors do not typically observe MCAS in children and A.Y. was 

convinced that El.Y. and J.Y. had MCAS.
The GAL testified that he spoke with the children’s Cleveland

pulmonologist and allergy immunologist. The GAL testified that he was told by the 

pulmonologist that the children did not have significant problems related to asthma, 

their pulmonary testing was normal, and during examinations he never heard 

evidence of wheezing. While the pulmonologist also told the GAL that the children’s 

inhalers were to be used on an as-needed basis, the GAL noted the physical 

prescriptions indicated daily use. The GAL further testified that the allergy 

immunologist informed him that she did not believe the children had MCAS, and 

A.Y. did not submit her children to a 24-hour urine test that would have indicated

whether they had MCAS. The GAL stated A.Y. was “hypervigilant” about the 

children and any medical symptoms they exhibited, but there were no signs of 

medical abuse.

The GAL’s written report and recommendation submitted prior to 

trial stated he was unable to recommend a residential parent. The GAL believed the 

determining factor was the credibility of A.Y. and E.Y. and that issue was within the 

purview of the trier of fact. At trial, the GAL testified that he thought another move 

could be detrimental to the children and amended his recommendation to designate

E.Y. as the residential parent. The GAL further testified that his recommendation 

was guided in part by geography and if both parents lived near one another, it would 

be difficult for him to specify a residential parent. Under such circumstances, the 

GAL felt shared parenting was a possibility.
A.Y.’s argument that the trial court did not make a finding as to 

whether A.Y. or E.Y. was more credible lacks merit. A.Y. does not present any case 

law to support this proposition nor is such a finding required pursuant to R.C.

3109.04(F)(1). Further, the trial court’s decision to designate E.Y. as the residential 

parent and legal custodian impliedly demonstrated that the court found E.Y. was 

more credible than A.Y.

Despite A.Y.’s contention to the contrary, the trial court’s reliance on 

the testimony of the children’s treating physicians is not an abuse of discretion. The 

wording in the divorce judgment entry that referenced expert testimony reads: 

“Further, expert testimony at trial revealed that the children’s medical providers did 

not think that the children had MCAS or the many allergies that Plaintiff claimed 

that they had. These experts testified that the children are, for the most part, healthy 

and thriving.”

A.Y. is correct that the two testifying pediatricians — Dr. Wisman

from Virginia and Dr. Mascioli from Cleveland — were not qualified as experts but 

testified as fact witnesses. Additionally, A.Y. correctly states that while Dr. Wisman

testified that he did not believe the children had multiple food allergies or MCAS, 

Dr. Mascioli did not testify to the same conclusions. Dr. Mascioli testified that he 

was the children’s primary pediatrician while they lived in Ohio and his office 

referred the children to local specialists to manage their ongoing medical conditions. 

Dr. Mascioli further testified that he did not recall if the children’s Virginia medical 
records contained diagnoses for their alleged medical conditions or if the diagnoses 

were contained in a document prepared and submitted to him by A.Y.

The inconsistencies raised by A.Y. do not constitute an abuse of 

discretion. The trial court found seven of the ten R.C. 3109.04(F) factors applied to 

the current situation; Dr. Wisman and Dr. Mascioli’s testimony related to only one 

of those factors — the children’s physical health. Additionally, the trial court did not 

rely exclusively on the pediatrician’s testimony, or the court’s misstatement of their

testimony, to evaluate the children’s physical health. The divorce judgment entry 

specified that in support of the trial court’s finding, the court reviewed Plaintiff’s 

exhibit Nos. 53 through 55 and found no formal diagnosis of the children with 

MCAS.

We note that it is rare for a GAL not to identify the recommended

residential parent and legal custodian prior to trial. Here, the GAL’s reluctance to 

provide such a recommendation in his report demonstrated that the nuances of this 

case — including E.Y.’s leaving town with the children without A.Y.’s consent, the 

children’s adaptation to life in Virginia, and the difficulty of assessing the credibility 

of A.Y. and E.Y. — created a unique scenario. For the foregoing reasons, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion when it designated E.Y. as the residential parent 

and legal custodian. 

A.Y.’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Provision of Residential Address

In her second assignment of error, A.Y. argues that the trial court 

erred when it required her to provide her residential address despite her 

participation in the Ohio Safe at Home Program. A.Y. relies on R.C. 111.46 and asks 

this court to vacate the trial court’s order requiring A.Y. to provide her residential 

address. E.Y. counters that A.Y. was required to provide her residential address to 

ensure receipt of her spousal support and any error was harmless.

We assume A.Y.’s concerns stem from the two sections in the July 21, 

2022 divorce judgment entry that reference addresses. According to the divorce 

judgment entry, the parties are required to submit their residential addresses and 

provide notification of relocation. July 21, 2022 Judgment Entry, p.6. Additionally, 

because A.Y. and E.Y. are subject to a support order, they must notify the Child 

Support Enforcement Agency of their current mailing and residential addresses and 

any changes in the future. July 21, 2022 Judgment Entry, p.11.

On June 8, 2021, A.Y. filed with the trial court proof of her enrollment 

in the Ohio Safe at Home Program. The trial court issued a corresponding journal 

entry on June 15, 2021, that found A.Y.’s enrollment in the program required 

governmental entities to use the address designated under the program — a post 

office box in Columbus, Ohio — until A.Y.’s participation in the program expired on 

April 23, 2025.

On April 13, 2022, A.Y. filed a notice of change of mailing address and 

requested that the court and clerk of courts utilize a Solon, Ohio address. The trial 
court’s July 21, 2022 divorce judgment entry referenced the Solon, Ohio address as

A.Y.’s residential address — even though A.Y.’s April 13, 2022 notice indicated it was 

a mailing address — and the divorce judgment entry was served at that same 

address. In other words, the divorce judgment entry reflected the mailing address 

provided in A.Y.’s April 13, 2022 change of address notice. Presumably, A.Y.’s Solon, 

Ohio mailing address represented her address issued under the Safe at Home 

Program.

We find that the trial court complied with the Ohio Safe at Home 

Program when it listed A.Y.’s designated mailing address as her residential address 

on page six of the divorce judgment entry. Pursuant to A.Y.’s participation in the 

Ohio Safe at Home Program, she may utilize the program’s designated mailing 

address in lieu of her residential address until expiration of the program. Similarly, 

we anticipate A.Y. will use the mailing address designated by the Ohio Safe at Home 

Program in response to the custody order and, if necessary, provide proof of her 

participation in the program to the Child Support Enforcement Agency.

A.Y.’s second assignment of error is overruled.

Posting a Bond

In her third assignment of error, A.Y. cites R.C. 3121.03 in support of 

her contention that the trial court should have required E.Y. to post a bond or, 

alternatively, entered a withholding order for A.Y.’s collection of support. E.Y. 

argues that the trial court’s divorce judgment entry inadvertently included language 
that stated E.Y. had no attachable income or assets to post a bond and, the error may 

be addressed through a nunc pro tunc judgment entry.

R.C. 3121.03 addresses the withholding or deduction of income or 

assets of an obligor, such as E.Y., who is required to remit child or spousal support. 

R.C. 3119.01; R.C. 3121.01(A). Pursuant to R.C. 3121.03(A)(1), an employer must 

withhold an employee’s income in satisfaction of child or spousal support and 

forward the withheld amount to the office of child support until notice of 

termination is received from the court or child support enforcement agency. If the 

court finds that the obligor has nonexempt funds on deposit in an account in a 

financial institution, the court may require the financial institution to deduct a 

specified amount in satisfaction of the support order and send the deducted 

amounts to the office of child support. R.C. 3121.03(B)(1). Additionally, a court may 

order the obligor to enter a cash bond with the court if the obligor does not receive 

income from an employer. R.C. 3121.03(C). The requirement of an obligor to post 

a bond is not typically necessary where the obligor is employed and his wages may 

be withheld under R.C. 3121.03. See Szymczak v. Szymczak, 136 Ohio App.3d 706, 

716, 737 N.E.2d 980 (8th Dist.2000) (Imposition of a bond was appropriate where 

the obligor’s self-employment and operation of his own company made withholding 

from his employer impossible.).

In accordance with the applicable statutes, the trial court ordered 

E.Y.’s monthly payments of support to be withheld or deducted from his income or 

assets and to be paid through the Ohio Child Support Payment Central. Based upon 
the trial court’s withholding order, E.Y. was not required to post a bond. A.Y.’s third 

assignment is without merit and is overruled.

However, within the divorce judgment entry, immediately following 

the above-described withholding order, the trial court included this conflicting 

language:

Method to Secure Support Payments

The Court finds that the support obligor has no attachable income and 

has no assets to post a bond.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 

support obligor shall seek employment, if able to engage in 

employment, and shall immediately notify the CJFS-OCSS, in writing, 

upon commencement or change of employment (including selfemployment), in receipt of additional income/monies, obtaining 

ownership of asset of value of $500.00 or more, receipt or termination 

of benefits or the opening of an account at a financial institution. The 

support obligor shall include a description of the nature of the 

employment and the name, business address and telephone number of 

any employer. The support obligor shall immediately notify the CJFSOCSS of any change in the status of an account from which support is 

being deducted or the opening of a new account with any financial 

institution. 

(Emphasis sic.), July 21, 2022 judgment entry, p. 10.

It appears that the above-cited paragraph was inadvertently included 

in the judgment entry because (1) the language in question does not comport with

the facts of the case and (2) the language conflicts with the paragraph in the divorce 

judgment entry that requires E.Y. to satisfy his support payments through a 

withholding order. Thus, we remand this matter for the limited purpose of the trial 
court to amend the divorce judgment entry to accurately reflect the court’s 

disposition on withholding. 

Judgment affirmed, and case remanded in part for proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR