OPINION

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS JUDGMENT ENTRY OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 BY FAILING TO FOLLOW THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF OHIO REVISED CODE 3113.21.5. THIS ERROR IS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT BY PROVIDING ONLY A HANDWRITTEN JUDGMENT ENTRY WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 9 OF THE LOCAL APPELLATE RULES OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH PROVIDES THAT HANDWRITTEN JUDGMENT ENTRIES ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. THIS ERROR IS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999.

The record indicates the parties executed an agreement on July 12, 1997, which provided appellee would continue to pay child support as currently set up with the court and appellant would repay $200 per month to him. The trial court adopted the parties' agreement by judgment entry dated May 26, 1998. Thereafter, appellee moved the court to find appellant in contempt for failure to comply with the repayment portion of the agreement, and appellant responded with a motion for child support increase, reimbursement of medical expenses, and attorney's fees. Appellant's motion also asked the court to delete any order requiring her to repay any sums to appellee. The court held a hearing, and each party submitted both hearing briefs. The trial court issued a judgment entry finding appellant owes appellee $1913. The court found appellee's child support payments were set at $593.66. The court re-set the child support amount at $393.66, and further ordered appellant to pay $50 per month towards the arrearages. The judgment entry was handwritten on SCFC form 18, as is the general practice in the domestic relations court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.

By GWIN, J., WISE, P.J., and EDWARDS, J., concurs separately.

I agree with the majority that the trial court did not modify the child support amount, but only modified the manner in which it was paid. Essentially, the trial court denied appellant's motion for modification. A perusal of the record shows that appellant did not present enough evidence to justify an increase in child support. Therefore, the trial court did not error in denying said modification. Implicit in the original agreement of the parties is that the Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month deviation is to be used for transportation expenses incurred by appellee for visitation. Because of the lack of an explicit order by the trial court on that point, I find that the trial court should have designated the reason for the Two Hundred Dollar ($200.00) per month deviation since that has never been done. If, in fact, it is so that appellee will pay all or part of the transportation expenses for visitation, then it should be made clear that that is the reason for the deviation. In addition, the trial court should make a specific order as to who is responsible for what portion of the transportation expenses. I am not recommending a reverse and remand on this point, but did want to indicate that the lack of explicitness may only lead to future disagreements between the parties and litigation.