Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-292 - Gaddis v. Stone Ridge Golf
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


Robert Michael Gaddis & Robert S. Gaddis, Appellants,

v.

Stone Ridge Golf, LLC, Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., & Greenville County Soil & Water Conservation District, Defendants,

Of whom

Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., is Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-292
Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed June 5, 2008


AFFIRMED


David L. Thomas, of Greenville, for Appellants.

N. Ward Lambert and R. Patrick Smith, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this civil action, Robert Michael Gaddis (R.M. Gaddis) and Robert S. Gaddis (R.S. Gaddis) appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their claims under section 15-36-100 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2007) and the alternative ground of res judicata.  We affirm.[1]

As to the professional negligence claim, S.C. Code § 15-36-100(E) (Supp. 2007) provides that a defective affidavit may result in dismissal for failure to state a claim unless cured by amendment within thirty days.  Here, the court never addressed in its final order the plaintiffsʼ request to amend the affidavit or pleadings to allege a supervisory theory of recovery and the court was never asked to do so pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.  Therefore, the supervisory theory of recovery was never asserted by amended affidavit or further developed in the record.  See Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 364 S.C. 222, 235, 612 S.E.2d 719, 726 (Ct. App. 2005) (“[A]n issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment.” (citing Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501-02, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899 (Ct. App. 2004))).  Similarly, the argument presented on appeal as to the effective date of the statute was never raised to the trial court.  See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (noting an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).  Thus, these issues are not preserved for our review. 

As to the trespass and nuisance causes of action, the trial court never explicitly addressed these claims in its final order.  Moreover, the court was never asked to explicitly address these claims after the written order was filed.  Accordingly, these issues are not preserved for review.  See Jones, 364 S.C. at 235, 612 S.E.2d at 726.

Based on our ruling, we need not address the alternative ground of res judicata as to R.M. Gaddis.  See Whiteside v. Cherokee County School Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (finding the court need not address remaining issue when resolution of prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, J., PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.