S.C. Supreme Court clarifies error preservation under Rule 59(e)

In Prye v. Fox, the South Carolina Supreme Court offered further guidance on Rule 59(e) error preservation. In Prye, the Pryes raised the issue whether Attorney Hill acted outside the scope of his professional responsibilities by allegedly soliciting Fox to join in litigation against the Pyes and by filing the suit without Fox's knowledge. The Pyes asserted this theory both at the summary judgment hearing and the Rule 59(e) hearing. The trial judge, however, did not rule on the theory. The Supreme Court agreed with the Pryes that this issue was preserved.

Generally, an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved. However, an exception to this rule exists where an issue is raised but not ruled upon at a Rule 59(e) hearing. Because a lawyer cannot force a judge to rule on an issue, raising the matter in the Rule 59(e) motion is sufficient.