scrcp motion in South Carolina

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review.").

2026See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review.").

2012Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24 , 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (holding a party must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to preserve an issue for review that has been raised to but not ruled upon by the trial court). .

2012Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24 , 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (holding a party must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to preserve an issue for review that has been raised to but not ruled upon by the trial court). .

2012Bailey & Assocs., Inc., 356 S.C. 370, 374 , 588 S.E.2d 639, 641 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A party cannot raise an issue for the first time in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion which could have been raised at trial.").

2012Bailey & Assocs., Inc., 356 S.C. 370, 374 , 588 S.E.2d 639, 641 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A party cannot raise an issue for the first time in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion which could have been raised at trial.").

2016As to issue four: Honea, 292 S.C. at 458 , 357 S.E.2d at 192 ("[A] party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this [the appellate court] complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's findings."); Doe, 370 S.C. at 212 , 634 S.E.2d at 55 (finding the wife's broad assertions in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion that the divorce decree was unsupported by the evidence and that the family court failed to properly apply the equitable division statute were insufficient to preserve her appellate arguments relating to the identification and valuation

2016As to issue four: Honea, 292 S.C. at 458 , 357 S.E.2d at 192 ("[A] party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this [the appellate court] complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's findings."); Doe, 370 S.C. at 212 , 634 S.E.2d at 55 (finding the wife's broad assertions in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion that the divorce decree was unsupported by the evidence and that the family court failed to properly apply the equitable division statute were insufficient to preserve her appellate arguments relating to the identification and valuation

2023Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider."); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 , 68–69, 682 S.E.2d 843, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating evidence that first appeared as attachment to a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion cannot be considered on appeal).

2023Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider."); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 , 68–69, 682 S.E.2d 843, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating evidence that first appeared as attachment to a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion cannot be considered on appeal).

2016As to issues two and three: Id. ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Sanderson v. Sanderson, 391 S.C. 249, 255 , 705 S.E.2d 65, 67 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding failure to make a particular argument in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion precluded consideration of the argument on appeal, as "[a] point not specifically raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal"); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 386 , 743 S.E.2d 734, 741 (2013) (finding the hu

2016As to issue four: Honea, 292 S.C. at 458 , 357 S.E.2d at 192 ("[A] party cannot sit back at trial without offering proof, then come to this [the appellate court] complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the family court's findings."); Doe, 370 S.C. at 212 , 634 S.E.2d at 55 (finding the wife's broad assertions in her Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion that the divorce decree was unsupported by the evidence and that the family court failed to properly apply the equitable division statute were insufficient to preserve her appellate arguments relating to the identification and valuation

2016As to issues two and three: Id. ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Sanderson v. Sanderson, 391 S.C. 249, 255 , 705 S.E.2d 65, 67 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding failure to make a particular argument in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion precluded consideration of the argument on appeal, as "[a] point not specifically raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal"); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 386 , 743 S.E.2d 734, 741 (2013) (finding the hu

2016As to issues two and three: Id. ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Sanderson v. Sanderson, 391 S.C. 249, 255 , 705 S.E.2d 65, 67 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding failure to make a particular argument in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion precluded consideration of the argument on appeal, as "[a] point not specifically raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal"); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 386 , 743 S.E.2d 734, 741 (2013) (finding the hu

2016As to issues two and three: Id. ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Sanderson v. Sanderson, 391 S.C. 249, 255 , 705 S.E.2d 65, 67 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding failure to make a particular argument in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion precluded consideration of the argument on appeal, as "[a] point not specifically raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal"); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 386 , 743 S.E.2d 734, 741 (2013) (finding the hu

2016As to issues two and three: Id. ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Sanderson v. Sanderson, 391 S.C. 249, 255 , 705 S.E.2d 65, 67 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding failure to make a particular argument in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion precluded consideration of the argument on appeal, as "[a] point not specifically raised to and ruled upon by the trial court will not be considered on appeal"); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 386 , 743 S.E.2d 734, 741 (2013) (finding the hu

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2013Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the trial court and obtain a ruling before those issues and arguments will be reviewed by an appellate court); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground); see also In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460 , 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. A

2013STANDARD OF REVIEW “The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Roberson v. S. Fin. of S.C., Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 9 , 615 S.E.2d 112, 114 (2005) (citing Thompson v. Hammond, 299 S.C. 116, 119 , 382 S.E.2d 900, 902-03 (1989)).

2013STANDARD OF REVIEW “The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Roberson v. S. Fin. of S.C., Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 9 , 615 S.E.2d 112, 114 (2005) (citing Thompson v. Hammond, 299 S.C. 116, 119 , 382 S.E.2d 900, 902-03 (1989)).

2012See Ulmer , 369 S.C. at 490 , 632 S.E.2d at 861 (holding an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case); Revis v. Barrett , 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding issue was not preserved on appeal when appellants never filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to clarify discrepancy in an order pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP).

2012See Ulmer , 369 S.C. at 490 , 632 S.E.2d at 861 (holding an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case); Revis v. Barrett , 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding issue was not preserved on appeal when appellants never filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to clarify discrepancy in an order pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP).

2011See Shealy, 341 S.C. at 460 , 535 S.E.2d at 444 (holding, in a workers’ compensation case, that the alleged error was not preserved for appellate review where the circuit court did not rule on the issue and no Rule *325 59(e), SCRCP motion was made); Leviner v. Sonoco Prods.

2011See Shealy, 341 S.C. at 460 , 535 S.E.2d at 444 (holding, in a workers’ compensation case, that the alleged error was not preserved for appellate review where the circuit court did not rule on the issue and no Rule *325 59(e), SCRCP motion was made); Leviner v. Sonoco Prods.

2011See Harkins v. Greenville County , 340 S.C. 606, 620 , 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (stating an issue must have been ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review, and where an appellant has failed to have the trial court rule on an issue, the appellate court will not address it); I'On, L.L.C. , 338 S.C. at 422 , 526 S.E.2d at 724 (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the lower court and obtain a ruling before an appellate court will review those issues and arguments); Noisette v. Ismail , 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991

2011See Harkins v. Greenville County , 340 S.C. 606, 620 , 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (stating an issue must have been ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review, and where an appellant has failed to have the trial court rule on an issue, the appellate court will not address it); I'On, L.L.C. , 338 S.C. at 422 , 526 S.E.2d at 724 (noting the losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to the lower court and obtain a ruling before an appellate court will review those issues and arguments); Noisette v. Ismail , 304 S.C. 56, 58 , 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991

2025Standard of Review "The appellate court gives 'great deference to the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local zoning ordinances.'" Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston, 418 S.C. 86, 91 , 791 S.E.2d 305, 308 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 317 S.C. 481, 487 , 454 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 1995)).

2025Standard of Review "The appellate court gives 'great deference to the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local zoning ordinances.'" Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston, 418 S.C. 86, 91 , 791 S.E.2d 305, 308 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 317 S.C. 481, 487 , 454 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 1995)).

2025Standard of Review "The appellate court gives 'great deference to the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local zoning ordinances.'" Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston, 418 S.C. 86, 91 , 791 S.E.2d 305, 308 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 317 S.C. 481, 487 , 454 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 1995)).

2025Standard of Review "The appellate court gives 'great deference to the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local zoning ordinances.'" Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston, 418 S.C. 86, 91 , 791 S.E.2d 305, 308 (Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 317 S.C. 481, 487 , 454 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 1995)).

2024Though the law provides that a Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP motion will not become a summary judgment if a party attaches documents to a complaint or incorporates them by reference and that a party may not benefit from failing to attach documents that are incorporated by reference, see Brazell v. Windsor, 384 S.C. 512, 516 , 682 S.E.2d 824, 826 (2009), we need not address this argument because the complaint outlines events beyond the three year limitations period that would put Appellants on inquiry notice, if not actual notice, that they may have a cause of action against Respondents. 5.

2023See e.g., Spence v. Wingate, 381 S.C. 487, 489-90 , 674 S.E.2d 169, 170 (2009) (when trial judge's order granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on precisely the grounds argued by respondents at summary judgment hearing, but did not restate the ground on which appellant opposed the motion, the ruling was sufficient to preserve appellant's argument, and appellant was not required to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to preserve the issue for appeal).

2023See e.g., Spence v. Wingate, 381 S.C. 487, 489-90 , 674 S.E.2d 169, 170 (2009) (when trial judge's order granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on precisely the grounds argued by respondents at summary judgment hearing, but did not restate the ground on which appellant opposed the motion, the ruling was sufficient to preserve appellant's argument, and appellant was not required to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to preserve the issue for appeal).

2023Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider."); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 , 68–69, 682 S.E.2d 843, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating evidence that first appeared as attachment to a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion cannot be considered on appeal).

2023Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider."); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45 , 68–69, 682 S.E.2d 843, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating evidence that first appeared as attachment to a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion cannot be considered on appeal).

2022"Denials of Rule 12(b)(6) motions are not immediately appealable." Weaver v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., 431 S.C. 223 , 234, 847 S.E.2d 268 , 274 (Ct. App. 2020); see also Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc., 339 S.C. 89, 93 , 529 S.E.2d 11, 13 (2000) ("Currently, this Court does not allow immediate appellate review of the denial of any Rule 12(b), SCRCP motion.").

2022"Denials of Rule 12(b)(6) motions are not immediately appealable." Weaver v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., 431 S.C. 223 , 234, 847 S.E.2d 268 , 274 (Ct. App. 2020); see also Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc., 339 S.C. 89, 93 , 529 S.E.2d 11, 13 (2000) ("Currently, this Court does not allow immediate appellate review of the denial of any Rule 12(b), SCRCP motion.").

2021See Elam, 361 S.C. at 24 , 602 S.E.2d at 780 ("A party must file such a [Rule 59(e),] motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review."); Wigfall v. Tideland Utilities, Inc., 354 S.C. 100, 103 , 580 S.E.2d 100, 101 (2003) (holding issues raised to the circuit court in its appellate jurisdiction were not preserved for further appellate review when the circuit court heard the issue but did not rule upon it and the appellant failed to request a rulling on the issue in a Rule 59(e) motion).

2021See Elam, 361 S.C. at 24 , 602 S.E.2d at 780 ("A party must file such a [Rule 59(e),] motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review."); Wigfall v. Tideland Utilities, Inc., 354 S.C. 100, 103 , 580 S.E.2d 100, 101 (2003) (holding issues raised to the circuit court in its appellate jurisdiction were not preserved for further appellate review when the circuit court heard the issue but did not rule upon it and the appellant failed to request a rulling on the issue in a Rule 59(e) motion).

2021The motion to reconsider is denied." Standard of Review "An appellate court reviews dismissal from a Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP motion under the same standard employed by the trial court." Delaney v. First Fin. of Charleston, Inc., 426 S.C. 607, 611 , 829 S.E.2d 249, 250 (2019).

2021The motion to reconsider is denied." Standard of Review "An appellate court reviews dismissal from a Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP motion under the same standard employed by the trial court." Delaney v. First Fin. of Charleston, Inc., 426 S.C. 607, 611 , 829 S.E.2d 249, 250 (2019).

2021See Gilbert v. Miller, 356 S.C. 25, 27 , 586 S.E.2d 861 , 862–63 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding a 12(b)(6) motion converted to a summary judgment motion because the plaintiff submitted outside documents in response to the motion, the defendant did not object to the documents, and the circuit court reviewed the documents in considering the motion).

2021See Gilbert v. Miller, 356 S.C. 25, 27 , 586 S.E.2d 861 , 862–63 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding a 12(b)(6) motion converted to a summary judgment motion because the plaintiff submitted outside documents in response to the motion, the defendant did not object to the documents, and the circuit court reviewed the documents in considering the motion).

2020Underwriters Risk Retention Grp., 347 S.C. 333 , 343, 554 S.E.2d 870 , 875 (Ct. App. 2001) ("An issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court for an appellate court to review the issue."); Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 171 , 584 S.E.2d 398, 399 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding that an argument raised to the trial court but not addressed in the final order is not preserved for appellate review when the appellant fails to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend). 2 To the extent JK Trading argues the trial court erred by denying its directed verdict motion, we find

2020Underwriters Risk Retention Grp., 347 S.C. 333 , 343, 554 S.E.2d 870 , 875 (Ct. App. 2001) ("An issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court for an appellate court to review the issue."); Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168, 171 , 584 S.E.2d 398, 399 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding that an argument raised to the trial court but not addressed in the final order is not preserved for appellate review when the appellant fails to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend). 2 To the extent JK Trading argues the trial court erred by denying its directed verdict motion, we find