THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Fatima Karriem, through her court appointed guardian, 

Phillip Simmons, Petitioner, 

v. 

Sumter County Disabilities and Special Needs Board, 

Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-002743 

Lower Court Case No. 2008-CP-43-01037 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Sumter County 

The Honorable Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-014 

Submitted March 10, 2015 – Filed March 25, 2015 

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED 

Joseph Thomas McElveen, III, and John Richard 

Moorman, both of The Bryan Law Firm of SC, LLP, of 

Sumter, for Petitioner. 

G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent. 
 

 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' decision in Karriem v. Sumter Cnty. Disabilities and Special Needs Bd., 

Op. No. 2014-UP-365 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Oct. 22, 2014). We deny the petition as 

to Question I. As to Question II, we grant the petition, dispense with further 

briefing, reverse the Court of Appeals' opinion in part, and remand to the Court of 

Appeals for consideration in accordance with this opinion. 

Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred in finding the circuit court failed to 

rule on her premises liability arguments in granting respondent's motion for 

summary judgment. We agree. 

A losing party must present her issues and arguments to the lower court and obtain 

a ruling before an appellate court will review those issues and arguments. I'On, 

L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 441-42, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000). 

If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails to rule 

upon it, the party must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the 

judgment in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. Id. Imposing this 

preservation requirement on the appellant is meant to enable the lower court to rule 

properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments. Id. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision to grant respondent's 

motion for summary judgment. However, relying on I'On, L.L.C., supra, the Court 

of Appeals declined to address petitioner's argument that summary judgment on 

her premises liability claim was not proper, finding although petitioner effectively 

raised the issue, the circuit court failed to rule on it. The Court of Appeals found, 

because petitioner failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion to seek a ruling on the issue, it 

was not preserved for appellate review. 

We find the circuit court ruled on petitioner's premises liability arguments, and, 

therefore, the Court of Appeals should have addressed whether summary judgment 

on petitioner's premises liability claim was proper. See Spence v. Wingate, 381 

S.C. 487, 674 S.E.2d 169 (2009) (holding issue was preserved when "the trial 

judge's order granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on precisely the 

grounds argued by respondents at the summary judgment hearing"). 
Accordingly, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration on the 

merits of: 1) whether petitioner's premises liability claim is subject to a Tort 

Claims Act exception, and 2) whether summary judgment on petitioner's premises 

liability claim is proper. 

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.