owned the property in question. Mary Leek, “a corporate officer of Coun-trymark, LLP” was seated at the defense table during the trial. Transcript at 16-17. We conclude that the issue of the property’s ownership was raised at the trial by Countrymark and was tried by implied consent. Countrymark, LLP, presented no argument that it was prejudiced in maintaining a defense upon the merits, and the trial court’s amendment to conform to the evidence subserves the presentation of the merits of the action. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by amending the pleadings to conform to the evidence that Countrymark, LLP, rather than Country-mark, Inc. owned the property in question. See, e.g., AB.C. Home & Real Estate Inspection, 500 N.E.2d at 1260-1261 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we note that Countrymark, LLP, does
holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that disposition order be remanded to the trial court for revision to conform to the trial courts oral pronouncement holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court