From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Noisette v. Ismail

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 1, 1991
304 S.C. 56 (S.C. 1991)

Summary

holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg

Opinion

23373

Heard October 4, 1990.

Decided April 1, 1991. Rehearing Denied May 1, 1991.

Stephen E. Darling and Bert G. Utsey, III, Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Charleston, for petitioner. Peggy Chandler, Belk, Cobb Chandler, Charleston, for respondent B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing. Arnold S. Goodstein and Mary A. Marwick, Goodstein Goodstein, Summerville, for respondent Lurline Noisette. Jon Austin, Wise Cole, P.A., Charleston, for defendant Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. David M. Collins, Buist, Moore, Smythe McGee, Charleston, for defendant Allstate Ins. Co.


Heard Oct. 4, 1990; Decided Apr. 1, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1991.


Petitioner Penn National Insurance Company (Penn National) appeals from the Court of Appeals' opinion which affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded this declaratory judgment action to the circuit court. Noisette v. Ismail, 299 S.C. 243, 384 S.E.2d 310 (Ct.App. 1989). We reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals' ruling which vacated the trial court's judgment that Penn National is liable for damages recovered by Respondent Lurline Noisette (Noisette) and remanded to the trial court for further consideration the issue of whether Defendant Bassem Ismail (Ismail) was a permissive user. The holding of the trial court on this sole issue is reinstated.

This action arose when Noisette sustained injuries and damages from an automobile accident on February 14, 1982, involving a vehicle driven by Ismail and owned by Defendant B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing (Owens). Noisette filed suit on February 15, 1983, and obtained a $60,000 judgment against Ismail. On December 11, 1984, Noisette brought a declaratory judgment action on the question of whether the vehicle driven by Ismail was covered under liability insurance provided by Penn National and Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) at the time of the accident.

The trial court determined (1) that Penn National provided garage liability insurance with a $100,000 limit to Ownes on February 14, 1982; (2) that Ismail was an insured; and (3) that Penn National was obligated to satisfy Noisette's judgment against Ismail.

On appeal the Court of Appeals, inter alia, vacated the trial court's judgment that Penn National was liable for damages recovered by Noisette against Ismail and remanded for the trial court to make specific findings of fact regarding whether Ismail was a permissive user of Owens' automobile at the time of the accident.

The sole issue on appeal to this Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding to the trial court the issue of whether Ismail was a permissive user.

Before the Court of Appeals, Penn National argued that Noisette failed to prove that Ismail was a permissive user of Owens' automobile at the time of the accident. Conversely, Noisette contended that she did, in fact, prove that Ismail was a permissive user. The Court of Appeals determined that a remand of the permissive user question was necessary because the trial court made no findings of fact on the issue.

Under South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a), "[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon." This Court has previously determined this requirement to be directory and that noncompliance would not form the basis for invalidating a judgment. May v. Cavender, 29 S.C. 488, 7 S.E. 489 (1888) (interpreting Section 291 Code of Laws of South Carolina); see also Borg Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Darby, 296 S.C. 275, 372 S.E.2d 99 (Ct.App. 1988). Rather, where a trial court substantially complies with Rule 52(a) and adequately states the basis for the result it reaches, the appellate court should not vacate the trial court's judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding. See Pawleys Island Civic Ass'n. v. Johnson, 292 S.C. 208, 355 S.E.2d 541 (Ct. App. 1986) (interpreting Section 15-35-110 Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976).

The record reflects the circuit court did not explicitly rule on Penn National's argument that Noisette failed to prove Ismail was a permissive user. Penn National has failed to show it made a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to amend or alter judgment on this ground. We hold the issue was thus not properly before the Court of Appeals and should not have been addressed. Halbersberg v. Berry, ___ S.C. ___, 394 S.E.2d 7 (Ct.App. 1990).

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals' remand on the question of permissive use and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court on this sole issue.

Reversed and judgment reinstated.

GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and TOAL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Noisette v. Ismail

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 1, 1991
304 S.C. 56 (S.C. 1991)

holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg

holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from Shealy v. Aiken County

holding an issue is not preserved when the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Kelly v. McCombs

holding if the trial court does not explicitly rule on an issue, a party must make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment to address the issue in order to preserve any alleged error for appeal

Summary of this case from Blanding v. Lott

holding an issue is not preserved when the circuit court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Jasper Cnty. Sch. Dist.

holding that when a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised and appellant makes no Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from Bacchi v. Am.'s Source Consulting Agency, LLC

holding the Court of Appeals should not address an issue which was not explicitly ruled on by the trial court or brought to the trial court's attention in a motion to alter or amend

Summary of this case from Pertuis v. Front Roe Rests., Inc.

holding appellate court cannot address an issue the circuit court did not explicitly rule on when the appellant did not raise the issue in a motion to alter or amend

Summary of this case from Griffis v. Cherry Hill Estates, LLC

holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Weekley v. Weekley

holding this court should not address an issue which was not explicitly ruled on by the trial court or brought to the trial court's attention in a motion to alter or amend

Summary of this case from McLaughlin v. Ninan

holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Weekley v. Weekley

holding when a trial court fails to address a specific argument raised by the appellant, the appellant must make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument or the matter is not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Brown v. Lawson-Johnston

holding that where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e) motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from Pryor v. Portnoy

holding when a trial court fails to address a specific argument raised by the appellant, the appellant must make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument or the matter is not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Smallwood v. Smallwood

holding where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and appellant makes no Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue

Summary of this case from Leggett v. Smith

holding that, when the trial court does not explicitly rule on an issue at trial and the appellant fails to move to alter or amend the judgment on that ground, the issue is not properly before the appellate court and should not be addressed

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Estate

holding the court of appeals improperly addressed an issue that the "circuit court did not explicitly rule on" when the appellant did not raise the issue in a motion to alter or amend

Summary of this case from Plott v. Justin Enterprises

holding that, when the trial court does not explicitly rule on an issue at trial and the appellant fails to move to alter or amend the judgment on that ground, the issue is not properly before appellate court and should not be addressed

Summary of this case from Assemblies v. River of Life

holding an issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Williams v. Lancaster County School

holding that, when the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to move to alter or amend the judgment on that ground, the issue is not properly before the court of appeals and should not be addressed

Summary of this case from Doe v. Howe

holding an issue not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Widman v. Widman

holding that, when the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to move under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to amend or alter the judgment on that ground, the issue is not properly before the court of appeals and should not be addressed

Summary of this case from Bower v. National General Insurance Company

holding an issue not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to make a Rule 59 (e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground

Summary of this case from Duncan v. CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.

holding that when the trial court does not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant fails to move under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to amend or alter the judgment on that ground, the issue is not properly before the court of appeals

Summary of this case from Whitfield Const. v. Bank of Tokyo Trust

holding where the trial court does not rule on an issue and appellant fails to move under Rule 59 (e), SCRCP, to alter or amend the judgment, the issue is not properly before the court of appeals

Summary of this case from Tatum v. Medical University of S.C
Case details for

Noisette v. Ismail

Case Details

Full title:Lurline NOISETTE, Respondent v. Bassem ISMAIL, B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 1, 1991

Citations

304 S.C. 56 (S.C. 1991)
403 S.E.2d 122

Citing Cases

First Union Nat. Bank of S.C. v. Soden

Similarly, Nancy's remaining arguments against the limitation of her recovery are not preserved due to her…

Sea Island Scenic Parkway Coalition v. Beaufort County Board of Adjustments and Appeals

"The record reflects the circuit court did not explicitly rule on [this] argument . . . ." Noisette v.…