COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71281 : ACCELERATED DOCKET TINA BIASELLA : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION WILLIAM COSTAKIS : : Defendant-Appellee : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 15, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Cleveland Municipal Court : Case No. 96 CVI 3146 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : __________________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: TIMOTHY S. WILLIAMS Attorney at Law McCafferty and Williams SunAmerica Building, 3rd Floor 1015 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendant-appellee: GEORGE R. PENFIELD Attorney at Law 19443 Lorain Road Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 - 2 - PER CURIAM: This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the Cleveland Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, and the briefs of the parties. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, which awarded appellant $250 on her complaint for damages for appellee's failure to return her security deposit. On appeal, appellant sets forth the following assignments of error: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO AWARD APPELLANT HER REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, WHICH ARE MANDATED BY R.C. 5321.16(C), UPON A FINDING THAT A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S SECURITY DEPOSIT HAD BEEN WRONGFULLY WITHHELD. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY NOT AWARDING APPELLANT THE MANDATORY INTEREST PROVIDED BY R.C. 5321.16(A) ON THAT PORTION OF APPELLANT'S SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH EXCEEDED HER MONTHLY RENTAL AMOUNT. The facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal are as follows. In July, 1992, the parties entered into a lease - 3 - agreement wherein appellee agreed to lease an apartment to appellant for $545 per month. Under the terms of the lease, appellant gave a security deposit of $790, $245 more than the monthly rent. When appellant vacated the premises without giving thirty days notice, as required under the lease, appellee withheld that portion of the security deposit allocated for monthly rent. Against the remaining balance, appellee charged $120 in late fees and $143.75 for changing locks and replacement of trash receptacles. According to appellee's itemization, appellant owed appellee $18.75. Thereafter, appellant instituted a small claims proceeding seeking the return of her security deposit. Filing pro se, using a standard complaint form supplied by the court, appellant prayed "judgment against defendant in the sum $790.00 plus interest from the date of 0/00/0000, at the rate of 10.00%, together with the cost of this action." Prior to trial, appellant retained counsel but did not request permission to amend her complaint. In her closing argument brief, appellant requested double damages on the amount wrongfully withheld, interest on the amount of the security deposit over and above the monthly rent, and attorney fees. The magistrate concluded that one month's rent as well as the late fees were rightfully withheld from appellant's security deposit. The $125 charged against the deposit for replacement of locks and trash receptacles, however, was determined not to be appellant's responsibility, and judgment in this amount was - 4 - awarded to appellant. Appellant objected, asserting that she was entitled to double damages, attorney fees and statutory interest. These objections were adopted in part, and appellant was awarded $250 in damages. Appellant contends that once the small claims court made a determination that $125 was wrongfully withheld, it was error for the court not to award attorney fees. In a like manner, appellant argues that under R.C. 5321.16(A), she is entitled to five percent interest on $245, the amount of the deposit over and above one month's rent. Appellee, on the other hand, contends that appellant failed to request this relief in her complaint and never sought to amend her complaint to include a demand for such relief. Appellee also maintains that appellant is not entitled to double damages because this relief was not similarly 1 requested. This court has previously determined that a party seeking relief through small claims proceedings is precluded from seeking relief in excess of that demanded in the complaint or in a subsequent amendment thereto. See Simon v. Durham (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 828, 831. While the Simon court construed former Civ.R. 54(C), its holding is not incompatible with the facts of this case. Even as amended, this rule continues to hold a party 1 In essence, appellee argues that the trial court erred in awarding appellant double damages when no such relief was requested in her complaint. Regardless of the merits of appellee's argument, appellee failed to cross-appeal this judgment, and this court is therefore limited to addressing appellant's assignments of error. See App.R. 3(C)(1). - 5 - to the demand for relief requested in the complaint or subsequent amendments to that complaint. We are mindful that small claims proceedings are informal proceedings most often utilized by pro se litigants seeking redress for relatively small, uncomplicated claims. See, generally, Klemas v. Flynn (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 249, 252. Nonetheless, appellant sought the benefit of counsel shortly before trial and could have requested that the complaint be amended to reflect a request for additional statutory damages. This was not done. Nor can appellant's complaint be construed to include a request for interest under R.C. 5321.16(A). The interest demand in appellant's complaint is not the same interest relief that appellant seeks under the Landlord-Tenant Act but more specifically relates to standard language for interest related to judgment. Consequently, appellant is precluded from seeking damages in excess of those demanded in her complaint. Upon consideration of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court and the law, this court finds that the trial court did not err in failing to award appellant attorney fees and interest on that portion of her security deposit in excess of the monthly rent. Accordingly, appellant's first and second assignments of error are not well taken. On consideration whereof, this court finds that substantial justice was done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Cleveland Municipal Court, Small Claims Division, is affirmed. - 6 - This cause is affirmed. 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, Small Claims Division, 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. DAVID T. MATIA, PRESIDING JUDGE JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE CHARLES D. ABOOD, JUDGE* *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: Charles D. Abood, retired Judge of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Supreme Court of Ohio. 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 .