"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT APPELLANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY FEES FOR SUCCESSFULLY WINNING A PRIOR APPEAL IN KLEIN V. MOUTZ, 9TH DIST. NO. 23132,, BECAUSE THEIR ATTORNEY COULD HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEY FEES AT THE TRIAL LEVEL IN A LESS COSTLY MANNER THROUGH A MOTION UNDER OHIO CIV.R. 60(B)." 2006-OHIO-4974
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT APPELLANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY FEES FOR SUCCESSFULLY WINNING A PRIOR APPEAL IN KLEIN V. MOUTZ, 9TH DIST. NO. 23132,, BECAUSE OHIO R.C. § 2006-OHIO-4974 5321.16 (C) DOES NOT APPLY TO PETITIONS FOR APPELLATE FEES."
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT APPELLANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY FEES FOR SUCCESSFULLY WINNING A PRIOR APPEAL IN KLEIN V. MOUTZ, 9TH DIST. NO. 23132,, BECAUSE THE AWARDING OF *3 SUCH AN AMOUNT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE WHEN COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES." 2006-OHIO-4974
{¶ 3} In each of their assignments of error, appellants have argued that the trial court erred when it refused to award them attorney's fees related tо the first appeal of this matter. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 4} In Christe v. CMS Mgmt. Co., Inc. (Jan. 20, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 18992, this Court upheld a trial court ruling which had supplemented attorney's fees under R.C.
{¶ 5} In her concurring opinion, Justice Lundberg Stratton noted as follows: *4
"I believe that the majority's holding fails to address the inеvitable question of in which forum a tenant may seek to recover attorney fees. For the following reasons, I believe that a tenant may not only petition the trial court, but may also petition the respective courts of appeals for attorney fees in these cases. * * * By doing so we leavе uncertain whether the Christes are left now with no recovery for their attorney fees for the appeal or whether they may yet apply to the appropriate appellate court for attorney fees." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 379-80 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring).
We agree with the logic espoused by the above concurring opinion. To the extent that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that attorney's fees in this context are costs, a party must seek their recovery from the appropriate appellate court. As such, we agree with the trial court that it lacked the authority to аward costs that were incurred before this Court.
{¶ 6} Our analysis is strengthened by analogous case law in the federal courts. Generally, a district court lacks the authority to award appellate costs which are not specifically mentioned in Fed.R.App.P.
{¶ 7} Accordingly, we find that the costs incurred in an appellate proceeding may only be recovered through pеtition to the court in which those costs were incurred. This Court notes as well that this is the course of actiоn that *5 was followed by the tenants involved in Christe after the case was remanded by the Ohio Supreme Court. Moreover, this Court awarded appellate attorney's fees in that matter. See Christe, 9th Dist. No. 18992.
{¶ 8} The trial court, therefore, properly concluded that it lacked authority under R.C. 5312.16 to award the costs of an appeal that occurred before this Court. Appellants' assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this аppeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal Cоurt, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall cоnstitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the periоd for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of еntry of this *6 judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellant.
*1SLABY, P. J. DICKINSON, J. CONCUR