Court Opinion

ID: 9854295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:04:41.221151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:00.381104
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Per Curiam:

*51This matter is before the court upon a petition for rehearing filed by Sandy Ann Palm and Rusty Lewis Palm and a petition for rehearing filed by Julia Lucille Williams. Neither petition has merit.
With particular regard, however, to the ground urged by Julia involving the constitutionality of Section 42-9-120 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Day v. Day, 216 S. C. 334, 58 S. E. (2d) 83 (1950), Julia is correct when she states that it is inferable from .the record that she raised this issue before the single commissioner. Even so, we need not address Julia’s argument concerning the question of the statute’s validity.
The circiut court nowhere passes upon the issue and it nowhere appears that Julia made any motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the judgment by requesting the circuit court to address it; therefore, the issue is not properly preserved. See Talley v. South Carolina Higher Education Tuition Grants Committee, 289 S. C. 483, 347 S. E. (2d) 99 (1986) (where an issue was raised in the lower court but not ruled on by the trial judge the issue is not preserved and the party is obligated to move before the lower court to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)); Green v. Green, 237 S. C. 424, 117 S. E. (2d) 583 (1960) (an issue raised by an exception is not properly before the Supreme Court where the record does not disclose the trial judge passed on the issue).
Petitions denied.