COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69527 MARIE CHARRON-KROFTA : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION MICHAEL McLAUGHLIN, ET AL. : : Defendant-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 6, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-292170 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: GEORGE K. SIMAKIS (#0029084 4186 Pearl Road Cleveland, Ohio 44109 For Defendants-Appellees: S. ROBERT LAZZARO (#0001191) KEVIN G. KILLEEN (#0039769) COSTANZO & LAZZARO 13317 Madison Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 - 2 - SPELLACY, C.J.: Plaintiff-appellant Marie Charron-Krofta ("appellant") appeals the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of her complaint for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief in a landlord/tenant dispute. Appellant assigns the following errors for review: 1. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' O.R. CIV.P. 12(B)(6), MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE LEASE, FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED, SINCE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS THE RELIEF SOUGHT. 2. THAT THE HOUSING DIVISION OF THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT, HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ON MATTERS INVOLVING LEASES BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IS IN ERROR. 3. WHERE A MATTER INVOLVING A DISPUTED/AMBIGUOUS LEASE IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMON PLEAS COURT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, IT IS ERROR THAT THAT COURT DOESN'T HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ENTIRE CASE AND ALL ANCILLARY MATTERS RELEVANT TO IT. 4. IN THE EVENT THE TRIAL COURT FELT THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WAS AMBIGUOUS OR VAGUE, IT WAS ERROR NOT TO HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS' O.R. CIV.P. 12(E) MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT RATHER THAN TO DISMISS THE CASE BEFORE IT. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. On July 12, 1995, appellant filed a complaint in which she alleged a written lease agreement was entered into on November 27, 1992, for the commercial premises located at 9600 Madison Avenue in Cleveland. Appellant leased the bar from Margaret Hricz. - 3 - Appellant averred she made payments pursuant to the lease until November of 1994. At that time, the parties entered into an oral agreement in which appellant was to rent an abutting store and renovate that property in lieu of making rental payments. Appel- lant spent at least $25,000 in making improvements to the building. Appellant alleged Hricz and her agent, Michael McLaughlin, changed the agreement in May of 1995. McLaughlin demanded appellant pay $1,200 a month in rent which was twice the agreed amount. Appellant asked for a declaratory judgment as to the rent, terms, and conditions of the leasehold agreement. She brought a claim for unjust enrichment for the $25,000 in repairs and improvements to the premises. Appellant sought an injunction against McLaughlin and Hricz which would order them to reinstate the lease. On July 19, 1995, Hricz and McLaughlin filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer in the Cleveland Municipal Housing Court. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss appellant's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), 12(E), and 12(F). The trial court dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant was later evicted from the premises. II. In her first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by dismissing her complaint for declaratory judgment. Appellant sought a determination of the terms, rent and conditions - 4 - of the lease agreement between the parties. Appellant has been evicted so the lease agreement is no longer in effect. Actions become moot when resolution of the issues presented is purely academic and will have no practical effect on the legal relations between the parties. Wagner v. Cleveland (1988), 62 Ohio App.3d 8, 13. It is the duty of an appellate court to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect. Where a decision cannot be made effectual by a judgment, a court should not express an opinion upon that issue and the issue becomes moot. Knutty v. Wallace (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 555, 558-559. Because the lease is no longer in effect, any declaration of its terms and conditions is moot. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. III. Appellant's second and third assignments of error will be addressed together. In both assignments of error, appellant argues the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide her complaint. The trial court did not dismiss appellant's complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of jurisdiction but under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The dismissal of an action for declaratory judgment upon a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss without making a declaration of the parties' rights establishes only that the complaint in that action did not state a claim for relief in declaratory judgment. - 5 - State, ex rel. Fenske, v. McGovern (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 129, paragraph four of the syllabus. Jurisdiction of the trial court is not an issue in this appeal. The trial court did not grant the dismissal on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. Appellant cannot assign as error a decision which was never made by the trial court. Appellant's second and third assignments of error are overruled. IV. In her fourth assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in not applying Civ.R. 12(E) for a more definite statement instead of dismissing the action. Again, the trial court dismissed appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court determined appellant did not state a claim for relief not that her complaint was too vague or ambiguous for the defendants to frame a responsive pleading. The trial court did not err in failing to grant a Civ.R. 12(E) motion made by the defendants instead of dismissing the case. Appellant's fourth assignment of error lacks merit. V. Appellant has raised an additional assignment of error in her brief which is not presented in her statement of the assignments of error. Appellant was required to present all of her assignments of error in that statement. App.R. 16(A)(3). Appellant's fifth assignment of error has not been properly presented for review - 6 - under App.R. 16(A)(7). It is stricken from this appeal and will not be reviewed. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. and ANN DYKE, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY CHIEF JUSTICE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time .