Task: Text Completion
Input (English): attorney-client relationship. In its order, the circuit court stated: “By statute, [Wingate] owed no duty or obligation to [Wife] with respect to the congressional life insurance policy or the manner in which it was paid.” Because the issue of Wingate’s prior representation of Wife was the only argument made by Wife in support of her claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and because the circuit court ruled on this issue, a Rule 59(e) motion was unnecessary. See Elam v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 361 S.C. 9. 25, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) (“Civil procedure and appellate rules should not be written or interpreted to create a trap for the unwary lawyer or party”); Hardaway Concrete Co. Inc. v. Hall Contracting Corp., 374 S.C. 216, 225, 647 S.E.2d 488, 493 (Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). On the merits, I would hold that a genuine 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review (B) holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal (C) holding a rule 59e motion unnecessary to preserve an argument for appeal where the issue was raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court (D) holding that an argument not made to the circuit court cannot be raised on appeal (E) holding issues must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for appellate review
Output (English): (C)