COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68644 KEVIN L. WATSON : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND vs. : : OPINION CHARLES AND CHARLOTTE BULL : : : : Defendant-Appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 8, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 94-CVI-22872 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: KEVIN L. WATSON 11223 Flower Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44111 For Defendant-Appellees: PETER SACKETT 820 W. Superior Avenue #300 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1800 - 2 - O'DONNELL, J.: Kevin L. Watson owns property located on Bosworth Road in Cleveland and appeals from a judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court, entered affirming a referee's recommendation, in favor of Charles and Charlotte Bull, his tenants, on Watson's claim for their breach of a lease agreement. Watson purchased property located at 3618 Bosworth Road in Cleveland, Ohio on February 1, 1994. At that time, appellees, Charles and Charlotte Bull, resided as tenants in that property. The Bulls filled out and signed a rental application presented by Watson, but they did not sign any written lease agreement. The Bulls remained as tenants in Watson's property until November 1, 1994, when they voluntarily vacated the premises after giving a one-month notice of their intent to vacate. At that time, Watson commenced this action in the Cleveland Municipal Court seeking to recover damages consisting of the rent for the months of November and December 1994 and January 1995 since he believed the parties had entered into a one-year lease. A Cleveland Municipal Court referee conducted a hearing on this case with all parties present, and filed a report which recommended the court enter judgment in favor of the Bulls. That report included findings that the Bulls never signed a written lease and that Watson failed to establish the existence of a one- year lease either in writing or by oral agreement. - 3 - On December 9, 1994, the court entered judgment in favor of the Bulls as recommended by the referee. Thereafter, Watson filed objections to the referee's report, but on February 3, 1995, the trial court overruled the objections and ordered the December 9, 1994 entry to remain in full force and effect. Watson now appeals and assigns four errors for our review. Appellees have not filed a brief in our court. The first assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT IN ACCEPTING EVIDENCE FROM THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WOULD NOT REVIEW ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SITED (SIC) AS THE RENTAL PACKAGE WHICH CONTAINED AN APPLICATION SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANTS- APPELLEES AND WAS DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO A SAMPLE LEASE WHICH CONTAINED THE EXPRESSED TERM OF ONE YEAR DURATION. Watson here contends the referee refused to review a rental packet containing a rental application signed by the Bulls and an unsigned sample lease with a one-year rental term. Our review of the record reveals that purported originals of the signed rental application signed by the Bulls as well as the sample lease are included in the evidence envelope as exhibits from the hearing before the referee and are, therefore, part of the record before us. There is nothing contained in the record to suggest irregularity, and thus, we will presume the regularity of the lower court's proceedings. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly considered all relevant evidence in entering its - 4 - judgment in this case. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled. Because Watson's second and third assignments of error share a common legal basis for our review, we will consider them together. The second assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT WOULD NOT ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE FROM THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT COPIES OF TEXT FROM THE CLEVELAND TENANTS ASSOCIATION AS EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF LANDLORD-TENANT ISSUES. The third assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT SUPPRESSED QUESTIONING OF DEFENSE- APPELLEE (SIC) BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY BY INTERJECTING STRONG PRAISE AND ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE RENTAL OPERATIONS. In these assignments of error Watson presents for our review alleged failures of the trial court in refusing to admit certain copies of text into evidence as expert testimony, and in suppressing questioning by Watson by interjecting praise of the rental operations. Our review of these alleged errors is governed by the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically App. R. 9(B) states in part: At the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant, in writing, shall order from the reporter a complete transcript *** as the appellant considers necessary for inclusion in the record ***. If there is no officially appointed reporter, App. R. 9(C) or 9(D) may be utilized. If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the - 5 - evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to the findings or conclusion. *** See also, Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, where at 19 the court stated: "Upon appeal of an adverse judgment, it is the duty of the appellant to ensure that the record, or whatever portions thereof are necessary for the determination of the appeal, are filed with the court in which he seeks review." In this case, while Watson challenges not only the rulings of the trial court with respect to admissibility of expert evidence but also attacks the court for suppressing examination of witnesses at trial, Watson has failed to comply with the plain directives of App. R. 9(B), 9(C), or 9(D), and has thereby precluded our review of these claims. Accordingly, we are constrained to follow the directives of App. R. 12(A)(2) which states: The court may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of error is based ***. Here, we have no independent basis upon which to review these claims. Accordingly, we shall disregard these assignments of error. The fourth assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT WAS GIVEN AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE IN EXCERPTS FROM AUTHORITIES IN THE LANDLORD- TENANT LAWS, SAMPLE CASES, COPIES OF THE RENTAL - 6 - PACKET IN QUESTION, CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, A MAP OF THE AREA AND HOW IT PERTAINS TO CRIMEWATCH ISSUES, HISTORICAL OPERATIONS OF RENTAL PROPERTIES SINCE 1987 IN ADDITION TO VERBAL TESTIMONY. THE DEFENSE-APPELLEE (SIC) HAD NO SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE YET THE JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. Watson argues that the trial court should not have entered judgment for the Bulls because he believes he presented so much more evidence than the Bulls. This is essentially an argument that the trial court's findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. In determining whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence we are guided by the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279 as follows: "Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence." Furthermore, in reviewing a question of the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court is guided by the presumption that the findings of the trial court were indeed correct. Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77. In this case, the referee's report reveals that the Bulls testified they never agreed to the terms of the one-year lease term and the actual lease does not contain a signature on the line for tenant's signature. Accordingly, the trial court received competent credible evidence in the record which supports - 7 - its judgment. Therefore, the fourth assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 8 - It is ordered that appellee(s) recover of appellant(s) 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 Cleveland Municipal 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. PORTER, P.J., and NAHRA, J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- .