stating that though our appellate courts "should follow ... longstanding precedent and resolve [an] issue on preservation grounds when it clearly is unpreserved," it is "good practice for us to reach the merits of an issue when error preservation is doubtful"
How later courts described this case
- stating that though our appellate courts "should follow ... longstanding precedent and resolve [an] issue on preservation grounds when it clearly is unpreserved," it is "good practice for us to reach the merits of an issue when error preservation is doubtful"
- determining that when an appellant's "argument in [her] brief [wa]s purely a recitation of facts, devoid of any citation to legal authority, with [only a] summary conclusion," the argument [was] abandoned
- holding an unappealed allocation of assets becomes the law of the case
- stating “[t]he proper measure of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is the amount of increase in the fair market value of the subject property due to the improvements made by the plaintiff’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice PLEICONES.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree that the two issue rule precludes our review of Lewis’s appeal of the judgment in Atlantic’s favor. I further agree that the issue of the security deposit was raised by the pleadings, and that a defense witness testified to Lewis’s rationale for not returning the deposit. I also agree that the master neglected to rule on the security deposit issue, that Atlantic filed a Rule 59(e) motion, that Lewis did not respond to this request, and that the master filed an amended order requiring Lewis to return the security deposit to Atlantic. Our rules of issue preservation require that where a trial judge rules upon a new issue in response to a party’s Rule 59(e) motion, the other party must challenge that new ruling by making its own Rule 59(e) motion in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. Coward Hund Constr. Co., Inc. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1 , 518 S.E.2d 56 (Ct.App.1999); Pelican Bldg. Ctrs. v. Dutton, 311 S.C. 56 , 427 S.E.2d 673 (1993). In my opinion, the issue whether the master erred in ordering Lewis return the security deposit is not before us as she made no Rule 59(e) motion challenging the master’s amended order. Coward Hund, supra; Pelican Bldg. Ctrs., supra.
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.