Opinion ID: 1212464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Talley's Appeal

Text: Talley raises several issues: (1) Does Section 18 violate S.C. Const. Art. III, Section 17 because (a) it is not germane to the GAA, and (b) it is not expressed in the title of the GAA? (2) Does Section 18 violate S.C. Const. Art. III, Section 1 because it attempts to delegate legislative power to a nongovernmental agency? (3) Did the trial judge err in failing to order the Committee to consider Talley's application? We need not reach these issues, however, because of numerous violations of this Court's rules. First, both issues under Article III, Section 17 were raised in a single exception. Since this exception contains more than one assignment of error, it is not in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6. See Stockman v. Marlow , 271 S.C. 334, 247 S.E. (2d) 340 (1978). Second, the question of whether Section 18 is germane to the GAA was not raised before the lower court. This is also true of the issue under Article III, Section 1. It is an axiomatic rule of law that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. American Hardware Supply Co., Inc. v. Whitmire , 278 S.C. 607, 300 S.E. (2d) 289 (1983). Third, the issue of whether Section 18 is expressed in the GAA's title was raised below, but was not ruled upon by the trial judge. Therefore, this issue is not preserved. See Aetna Life Ins. v. Lourie , 201 S.C. 478, 23 S.E. (2d) 741 (1943); State v. Thomas , 159 S.C. 76, 156 S.E. 169 (1930); See also Garris v. McDuffie , 288 S.C. 637, 344 S.E. (2d) 186 (Ct. App. 1986). Additionally, we note that this case was commenced after July 1, 1985, and Talley did not move before the lower court to amend the judgment. S.C.R.C.P. 59(e); See also S.C.R.C.P. 60. Furthermore, the title issue was improperly raised by exception. Talley prevailed below based on Equal Protection; however, he raises this further issue by exception. He should have raised it as an additional sustaining ground. See Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Tax Comm. , 233 S.C. 129, 103 S.E. (2d) 908 (1958). Finally, Talley contends the lower court erred in not ordering the Committee to consider his application. This issue is not properly before this Court because it was raised, but not ruled upon below. See Aetna Life Ins. v. Lourie, supra . The numerous procedural errors justify dismissal of Talley's appeal. See Sloan Const. Co. v. DHEC , 285 S.C. 523, 331 S.E. (2d) 345 (1985).