COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70436 : PRITAM S. BRAR : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and v. : : OPINION JAMES ALECK : : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 12, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 95-CVI-1887 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: KEITH E. BELKIN, ESQ. DAVID P. BERTSCH, ESQ. 1111 Tower East BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE & 20600 Chagrin Boulevard BURROUGHS Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122-5334 50 S. Main Street P.O. Box 1500 Akron, Ohio 44308 CHRISTOPHER J. CARNEY, ESQ. BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE & BURROUGHS 1375 East 9th Street Suite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - KARPINSKI, J.: Defendant-appellant James Aleck appeals from a judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff-appellee Pritam Brar in the amount of $1,602.22 plus statutory interest for damages to an automobile. On January 30, 1995, Brar filed the complaint sub judice in the municipal court small claims division alleging that Aleck damaged his automobile parked at or near a construction site on which Aleck was working. Aleck did not seek to transfer the case from the small claims division to the regular docket of the municipal court. The matter proceeded to trial before a municipal court referee on March 19, 1995. The parties have not submitted a transcript of this trial on appeal. After the trial in the municipal court, Aleck filed an action arising out of the same events against Brar in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-290887. Aleck thereafter requested both the municipal court and common pleas court to transfer and consolidate the two actions. The municipal court referee issued a two-page typewritten report, dated June 27, 1995, which recommended judgment in favor of Brar. The municipal court approved the referee's report, denied the motion to transfer the action to the common pleas court, and entered judgment in favor of Brar in an order journalized July 3, 1995. - 3 - Aleck subsequently filed a motion in the municipal court to vacate its prior judgment and transfer the action to the common pleas court for consolidation. Aleck asserted that he did not receive notice of the municipal court judgment for Brar or have an opportunity to object to the referee's report. The municipal court denied Aleck's motion to vacate and transfer and overruled his objections. Aleck's sole assignment of error, through newly retained appellate counsel, follows: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO FILE A COUNTERCLAIM AND IN NOT TRANSFERRING THE SMALL CLAIMS ACTION FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH THE RELATED CASE IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT. This assignment lacks merit. Aleck argues the municipal court erred by refusing him an opportunity to file a counterclaim and by refusing to transfer 1 the case to the common pleas court. However, the record does not support Aleck's arguments. The record indicates that the parties appeared in the municipal court on March 17, 1995, and the matter proceeded to trial. The record contains no indication that Aleck sought to 1 Aleck's brief refers to an order by the common pleas court which purportedly granted his motion to transfer the case (pending in the municipal court) to the common pleas court and consolidate the two actions. However, Civ.R. 13(J) governs transfer of cases between these two courts and requires the motion be filed in the municipal court so the municipal court can determine whether to certify the case to the common pleas court. Aleck has cited no authority which recognizes that a common pleas court may order a municipal court to transfer a case to the common pleas court. - 4 - file a counterclaim prior to, or even during, this trial. The referee's report makes no mention of any request by Aleck to file a counterclaim during trial. In fact, Aleck took no action to raise a counterclaim or transfer the case until after the trial had been completed. Moreover, to this date, the record does not contain any motion for leave to file a counterclaim or the proposed counterclaim. It is well established that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a belated motion to amend pleadings during trial. Haller v. Haller (June 20, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58739, unreported at pp. 3-4; see also Maddox v. Brentwood Hospital (Mar. 21, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58239, unreported at pp. 7-8 (motion to amend complaint filed on day of trial). Sound principles of judicial economy dictate that litigants cannot wait until after the evidence concerning a claim is presented at trial in a municipal court before seeking to raise additional claims to 2 defeat the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Under the circumstances, the municipal court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aleck's belated request to raise a counterclaim or transfer the case to the common pleas court. Accordingly, Aleck's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. 2 It appears that Aleck made no attempt to raise his counterclaims until the municipal court announced results adverse to him. Even if Aleck did not receive the referee's report as he argues, waiting to raise a request to file a counterclaim or transfer the case to the common pleas court, until after the matter had already been submitted to the municipal court for decision, would ordinarily warrant denial of such a belated request. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his 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. NAHRA, P.J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI JUDGE 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 .