Gaddis v. Stone Ridge Golf

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Robert Michael
Gaddis & Robert S. Gaddis, Appellants,

v.

Stone Ridge
Golf, LLC, Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., & Greenville County Soil
& Water Conservation District, Defendants,

Of whom

Arcadis
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., is Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-292

Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed June 5,
2008

AFFIRMED

David L. Thomas, of Greenville, for Appellants.

N. Ward Lambert and R. Patrick Smith, both of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  In this civil action, Robert
Michael Gaddis (R.M. Gaddis) and Robert S. Gaddis (R.S. Gaddis) appeal the
trial court’s dismissal of their claims under section 15-36-100 of the South
Carolina Code (Supp. 2007) and the alternative ground of res judicata. 
We affirm.[1]

As to the professional negligence claim, S.C. Code § 15-36-100(E) (Supp. 2007) provides that a defective
affidavit may result in dismissal for failure to state a claim unless cured by
amendment within thirty days.  Here, the court never addressed in its final
order the plaintiffsʼ request to amend the affidavit or pleadings to
allege a supervisory theory of recovery and the court was never asked to do so
pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.  Therefore, the supervisory theory of recovery was never asserted
by amended affidavit or further developed in the record.  See Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 364 S.C. 222, 235, 612 S.E.2d 719, 726 (Ct. App. 2005) (“[A]n issue is
not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and
the appellant does not make a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment.”
(citing Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 501-02, 597 S.E.2d 897, 899
(Ct. App. 2004))).  Similarly, the argument presented on appeal as to the
effective date of the statute was never raised to the trial court.  See Wilder
Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (noting an
issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised
to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).  Thus,
these issues are not preserved for our review. 

As to the trespass and nuisance causes of action, the trial court
never explicitly addressed these claims in its final order.  Moreover, the
court was never asked to explicitly address these claims after the written
order was filed.  Accordingly, these issues are not preserved for review.  See Jones, 364 S.C. at 235, 612 S.E.2d at 726.

Based on our ruling, we need not address the alternative ground of res judicata as to R.M. Gaddis.  See Whiteside v.
Cherokee County School Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993)
(finding the court need not address remaining issue when resolution of prior
issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
J., PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.