Court Opinion

ID: 9594100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:27:15.670953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:51.213118
License: Public Domain

Justice KITTREDGE,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority relies on an unpreserved issue to reverse the court of appeals. As noted by the court of appeals:
Notwithstanding, Rice did not move to vacate the judgment based on excusable neglect by arguing that the negligence of her counsel should not be imputed to her due to his willful abandonment of her case, nor does she attempt to *313raise this ground on appeal. While arguably one could assert that this ground was raised in Rice’s pro se motion to reconsider, that motion was never ruled on by the trial court and the issue was never raised on appeal. In order for an issue to be properly presented for appeal, Rice’s brief must set forth the issue in the statement of issues on appeal. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR; Silvester v. Spring Valley Country Club, 344 S.C. 280, 285, 543 S.E.2d 563, 566 (Ct.App.2001). Further, it is error for the appellate court to consider issues not properly raised to it. First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (stating appellant must provide authority and supporting arguments for his issue to be considered raised on appeal). Accordingly, we may not consider this issue.
Tobias v. Rice, 379 S.C. 357, 365, 665 S.E.2d 216, 220 (Ct.App.2008).
I vote to affirm the court of appeals.