Opinion ID: 1647538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the amount of the judgment was appropriate.

Text: Custom Sales' first argument is that the trial court was clearly erroneous in setting the amount of the judgment, asserting that by a clear preponderance of the evidence it was entitled to a judgment of $8,260.42. However, the record does not contain proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or objections to Modlin's proposed findings by Custom Sales. See SDCL 15-6-52(a). Under the settled law of this state, [t]he failure of an appellant to object to findings of fact and conclusions of law and to propose his or her own findings, limits review to the question of whether the findings support the conclusions of law and judgment. Huth v. Hoffman, 464 N.W.2d 637, 638 (S.D.1991) (emphasis added); GMS, Inc. v. Deadwood Social Club, Inc., 333 N.W.2d 442, 443 (S.D.1983); Application of Veith, 261 N.W.2d 424, 425 (S.D.1978). Accordingly, on review, this court may only determine whether the trial court's conclusions of law and its order and judgment are supported by the findings of fact. We have reviewed the salient findings and determine that they support the conclusions of law.