COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69341 SPORTS SYSTEMS, INC. : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION MR. T. PAINTING CO., INC. : : Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OCTOBER 3, 1996 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Bedford Municipal Court : Case No. 93 CVF 4327J JUDGMENT : Judgment vacated. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellee: MICHAEL P. HARVEY, ESQ. PETER F. FLETCHER, ESQ. 311 Northcliff Drive 115 W. Aurora Road Rocky River, OH 44116 Northfield, OH 44067 - 2 - PATTON, J. Plaintiff-appellant, Sports Systems Inc. ("plaintiff"), appeals the court's order which granted plaintiff $1,182.00 in damages against defendant-appellee, Mr. T Painting ("defendant"). Plaintiff appeals the amount of damages, the non-consideration of a motion for default, and the court's statement of facts submitted to this court. On July 21, 1993 plaintiff entered into an oral contract with defendant to sandblast, prime, and paint, approximately 1,900 pieces of metal which consisted of goal sets, brackets, and posts. The price of the contract was $3,985.00. Plaintiff conveyed to defendant that time was of the essence because the metal was needed to fulfill another job plaintiff had in Rhode Island. Defendant said the job would be completed one week from delivery of the steel. Between August 3 and August 6, 1993 the metal was delivered to defendant. Defendant then told plaintiff that the job would take longer than expected to complete, until August 20, 1996. The metal finally arrived in Rhode Island on August 25, 1993. After an inspection of the metal, plaintiff became aware of a number of problems with the shipment. Many of the necessary pieces were not included in the shipment, the paint was bubbling and scraped, and the pieces did not appear to be primed or sandblasted. Plaintiff notified defendant of the problem but defendant claimed - 3 - they did not know what caused the damage. Plaintiff then resanded and repainted all the pieces on site in Rhode Island. On January 31, 1994 plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Bedford Municipal Court alleging breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 20, 1994 claiming damages of $17,817.00 for fraudulent misrepresentation because defendant claimed they were bonded and insured in their advertising when in fact they were not. Defendant never answered plaintiff's amended complaint so plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. The case was then referred to mandatory arbitration. After arbitration, the court issued an order stating the motion for default judgment was moot because "plaintiff's claim exceeds the jurisdictional amount." The court then said plaintiff could certify this matter and file in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas or "this Court will reduce plaintiff's prayer to within the jurisdictional limits of this Court." On June 12, 1995 the case proceeded to trial. The court issued its decision on June 20, 1995. The court found in favor of plaintiff for breach of contract because there were defects with 20 of the posts. However, the court only awarded plaintiff damages totalling $1,182.00 stating plaintiff did not offer any proof to substantiate its other damage claims. It is this decision of the court from which plaintiff now appeals. - 4 - Plaintiff asserts three assignments of error. However, we need not reach the merits of these assignments of error because we find the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Pursuant to R.C. 1901.17 a municipal court has jurisdiction only in cases where the amount claimed by any party is not in excess of $10,000.00. Plaintiff's amended complaint sought damages in the amount of $17,817.00. This is clearly above the jurisdictional amount delineated in R.C. 1901.17. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to hear this case and erred by not dismissing it immediately upon the filing of the amended complaint. In State Ex Rel. National Employee Benefit Services, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga, Et Al. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 49, 50, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a municipal court has the jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case when a supplemental complaint was filed which increased the prayer amount over the $10,000.00 jurisdictional limit set by R.C. 1901.17. The court held "the municipal court had no jurisdiction under R.C. 1901.17 to decide the merits of the case once the supplemental complaint was filed." In addition, the Court held a dismissal of the case is the proper course of action when a pleading seeks relief beyond the statutory authority. Id. Also, the Court found that pursuant to Civ. R. 13(J) the municipal court did not have to certify the case to another tribunal, the court's only option was to dismiss the case. Id. See also, Walter v. McGuinness (December - 5 - 29, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 15471, unreported, (case dismissed when a counterclaim was filed which increased the prayer amount over the $10,000.00 jurisdictional amount) and Wojton v. Riverside Apartments, Et Al. (February 3, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14691, unreported, (case dismissed when an amended complaint was filed which increased the prayer amount over the $10,000.00 jurisdictional limit). In the present case, as soon as the amended complaint was filed alleging $17,182.00 in damages the court lost its jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits. The court should have dismissed the case, thereby allowing plaintiff to file his claim in the common pleas court as an original action. The foregoing disposition renders plaintiff's three assignments of error moot pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). The judgment of the Bedford Municipal Court is vacated. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Bedford 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. O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App. R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .