From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scdot v. First Carolina

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 27, 2007
372 S.C. 295 (S.C. 2007)

Summary

holding to preserve a question for review, the objection must be timely made, and usually it must be made at the earliest possible opportunity

Summary of this case from State v. Holcomb

Opinion

No. 26275.

Heard January 3, 2007.

Decided February 27, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jasper County, J. Michael Baxley, J.

B. Michael Brackett, of Moses Koon Brackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Daniel E. Henderson, of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth Detrick, of Ridgeland, and Thomas A. Holloway, of Harvey Battey, of Beaufort, for Respondent.



This case arises out of a condemnation action by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and was certified for review from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. First Carolina Corporation of South Carolina (First Carolina) initiated a suit to determine the value of a piece of condemned property. The trial court submitted the case to the jury with instructions for the jury to utilize a special verdict form provided by the court. The jury returned a verdict in favor of First Carolina and awarded compensation for the land taken and special damages to the remaining property. SCDOT appealed. We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

SCDOT condemned approximately eight (8) acres of land belonging to First Carolina. The condemned property was part of a larger, four hundred (400) acre tract of land. First Carolina initiated an action to determine the amount of compensation owed by SCDOT for the condemnation of First Carolina's property.

During trial, First Carolina argued that it should be compensated based on the value of land taken plus any special damages to the remaining property. SCDOT argued that First Carolina's method inflated the value of the condemned property. Instead, SCDOT advocated for the use of the "before and after" appraisal methodology.

First Carolina submitted a special verdict form to the court. After the trial court announced its intention to utilize a modified version of the special verdict form, SCDOT indicated that it would prefer a general verdict form. The trial court denied SCDOT's request to use a general verdict form.

The modified special verdict form utilized by the court asked the jury to 1) unanimously determine just compensation for the land taken, 2) unanimously determine whether the taking caused any special damage to the remaining property, and 3) determine the amount of the special damages, if any.

Following the charge to the jury, but before the court delivered the trial exhibits and special verdict form to the jury, SCDOT again objected to the use of the special verdict form on the basis that it "emphasizes damages by its bifurcated nature and the Department [didn't] believe that the land-owner ha[d] proven its damages to the standards required by the law." The trial court overruled SCDOT's objection and submitted the form to the jury on the basis that the form would simplify an appellate review of the verdict. The jury returned a verdict of $1,990,975.00, of which $640,300.00 was for the land acquired and $1,350,675.00 for the damage to the remaining property.

SCDOT filed several post-trial motions, including a request for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict based upon the argument that the verdict form was unduly suggestive of the appraisal method advocated by First Carolina. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

SCDOT appeals raising the following issues for review:

I. Did the trial court err in utilizing a special verdict form because the nature of the case, the facts, or the evidence did not warrant a special verdict?

II. Was the special verdict form submitted by the trial court unduly suggestive or misleading as to the appraisal method to be used by the jury in calculating just compensation?

In the interest of clarity, we have reorganized and combined issues II through VII presented by SCDOT for this Court's review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The determination of whether a special verdict should be submitted to the jury is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and an appellate court will only reverse upon a finding of an abuse of that discretion. Smoak v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 281 S.C. 420, 421, 315 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1984). An abuse of discretion occurs when a ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support. Conner v. City of Forest Acres, 363 S.C. 460, 467, 611 S.E.2d 905, 908 (2005).

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Use of Special Verdict Form

SCDOT argues that the trial court erred in utilizing a special verdict form because the nature of the case, the facts, and the evidence did not warrant a special verdict. We disagree.

The trial judge has the discretion to determine how a case is submitted to the jury. Smoak, 281 S.C. at 421, 315 S.E.2d at 118. Rule 49(a), SCRCP, provides in part:

The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate.

SCDOT does not dispute the discretionary nature of this decision in its brief. Furthermore, SCDOT does not argue that the trial court; abused its discretion by submitting the special verdict form to the jury. The only arguments SCDOT propounds are that the verdict form is misleading and that the use of a general verdict form would have simplified the appeals process.

We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in utilizing a special verdict form. Rule 49, SCRCP, clearly allows the court to use special verdicts in its discretion. Even if a general verdict was more practical given the circumstances of this case, this fact alone does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in utilizing a special verdict form in this case.

II. Prejudicial Effect of the Special Verdict Form

SCDOT argues that the special verdict form submitted by the trial court was unduly suggestive or misleading as to the appraisal method to be used by the jury in calculating just compensation. We disagree.

At the outset we must address the trial court's ruling that SCDOT waived its objection to the special verdict form.

It is well settled that an issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion. McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Syst., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996). Further, it is a litigant's duty to bring to the court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error. Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471, 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965). Additionally, "[i]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review." Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998). "There are four basic requirements to preserving issues at trial for appellate review. The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity." Jean Hoefer Toal et al, Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002).

During trial, the court announced its intention to use a special verdict form and asked if either party objected to the use of the form. SCDOT stated that "we would just prefer the first verdict form." The court denied the request finding the special verdict form appropriate and in the interest of "judicial economy and appellate court economy." The court then asked if either party wished to include more instructions regarding the use of the form, and SCDOT replied, "I understand and, your honor, if you are going to use this form then that's fine, either way." After the court charged the jury, but before the court gave the jury the verdict form, SCDOT again objected to the use of the verdict form stating "the Department objects to the verdict form [sic] it emphasizes damages by its bifurcated nature and the Department doesn't believe that the landowner has proven its damages to the standards required by the law in this case." The court overruled SCDOT's objection.

SCDOT filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict asserting that the verdict form was unduly suggestive. The trial court found that SCDOT did not object to the use of the verdict form on that basis, and therefore, the court found that the objection was waived. SCDOT argues that although it did not use those exact words, it nonetheless objected to the use of the special verdict form on the basis that it emphasized the appraisal method advocated by First Carolina.

We hold that SCDOT made a timely objection to the use of the special verdict form. Although SCDOT did not phrase its objection in the exact terms used in the issues on appeal, SCDOT's objection on the basis that the verdict form "emphasizes damages by its bifurcated nature" provided a meaningful objection with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to rule on the issue. State v. Russell, 345 S.C. 128, 134, 546 S.E.2d 202, 204 (Ct.App. 2001) (holding that a party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve an argument, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground). In fact, the trial court denied the motion finding that the form did not emphasize damages because the jury could choose to calculate damages using SCDOT's proposed method and fill in only the first question. Further, SCDOT's initial objection and discussion with the trial court regarding the use of the special verdict form was not a concession to the use of the form. The record reflects that SCDOT's statement, "I understand and, your honor, if you are going to use this form then that's fine, either way," was simply a response to the court's question concerning any requests for additional instructions to the jury on the form.

Turning to the merits, a special verdict question may be so defective in its formulation that its submission results in a prejudicial effect which constitutes reversible error. 9A Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d § 2508, p. 193. In evaluating the prejudicial effect of a defective special verdict question or special interrogatory, the court must consider the question or interrogatory along with the instructions given to the jury. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 282, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct.App. 1991) (finding that special interrogatories and instructions must be considered together). The prejudicial effect of a defective verdict form may be cured where the trial court provides clear and cogent jury instructions. See State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188, 214, 628 S.E.2d 482, 496 (Ct.App. 2006); State v. Myers, 344 S.C. 532, 536, 544 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct.App. 2001).

Rule 49, SCRCP, is identical to the federal rule. Under federal case law, it is improper to use a special verdict form which is likely to confuse or mislead the jury. However, such error may be corrected by clear instructions to the jury. See Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532, 541-42 (9th Cir.2003); Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352, 363 (3rd Cir.1999); Horstmyer v. Black Decker, Inc., 151 F.3d 765, 771-72 (8th Cir.1998); Umpleby v. Potter Brumfield, Inc., 69 F.3d 209, 214 (7th Cir. 1995); and Cutlass Productions, Inc. v. Bregman, 682 F.2d 323, 327 (2nd Cir.1982).

The special verdict form submitted to the jury by the court asked three questions:

The special verdict form used by the trial court closely resembles the measure of just compensation as required in the Eminent Domain Procedure Act. See S.C. Code Ann. § 28-2-370 (2005) (providing that "in determining just compensation, only the value of the property to be taken, any diminution in the value of the landowner's remaining property, and any benefits as provided in § 28-2-360 may be considered").

1) We, the jury, unanimously find just compensation for the landowner for the land actually taken by the Department of Transportation to be ___.

2) Do you, the jury, unanimously find any special damages to the remaining property of the landowner that are a direct and proximate result of the taking? ___ No. If No is chosen, end deliberations and sign verdict form. ___ Yes. If Yes is chosen, go to Question 3.

3) We, the jury, unanimously find special damages to the remaining property of the landowner in the amount of ___

During the jury charge, the trial court explained to the jury that it could find just compensation using either of the two methods presented during trial. The court went on to explain fully both the "before and after" method of calculation, and also the appraisal method which requires a finding of the value of land taken plus damage to the remaining property. At the end of the jury charge, the court explained the use of the verdict form. The court further explained that the jury was not required to find any compensation under Question 3, but if it did find compensation under Question 3, that amount would be in addition to the compensation found in Question 1.

Reading the verdict form in conjunction with the jury instructions, we find that any possible confusion or misapprehension caused by the verdict form was remedied by the instructions from the court. The form did not misstate the law or restrict the jury's finding to one method of calculation. Furthermore, although SCDOT argues that the more prudent choice would have been to use a general verdict form, SCDOT presented no evidence that the use of the special verdict form bent the will of the jury or prejudiced SCDOT in any way.

Accordingly, the special verdict form utilized by the trial court was not unduly suggestive or misleading, and did not prejudice SCDOT. Additionally, any perceived defect in the form was cured by the trial court's instructions as to the law and use of the form.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm.

MOORE, BURNETT, JJ., and Acting Justices JAMES W. JOHNSON, JR., and L. CASEY MANNING, concur.


Summaries of

Scdot v. First Carolina

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 27, 2007
372 S.C. 295 (S.C. 2007)

holding to preserve a question for review, the objection must be timely made, and usually it must be made at the earliest possible opportunity

Summary of this case from State v. Holcomb

holding in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge

Summary of this case from St. Stephen Family Dentistry, LLC v. Gregg

holding that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity

Summary of this case from Allegro, Inc. v. Scully

holding that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity

Summary of this case from Allegro, Inc. v. Scully

holding that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been " raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"

Summary of this case from Mahaffey v. OneTone Telecom, Inc.

holding that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity

Summary of this case from Judy v. Judy

holding that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity

Summary of this case from Allegro, Inc. v. Scully

holding that for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court

Summary of this case from CalTel, Inc. v. Patel

holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court are not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Trinity Invs. LLC v. Marina Ventures, Inc.

holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to preserve the issue for appellate review

Summary of this case from McMasters v. Charpia

holding that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge

Summary of this case from Scalise Devt. v. Tidelands Investments

holding that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge

Summary of this case from Foster v. Foster

holding an objection, though not phrased "in the exact terms used in the issues on appeal" "provided a meaningful objection with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to rule on the issue"

Summary of this case from State v. Mitchell

finding that although SCDOT did not phrase objection in the exact terms used in the issues on appeal, the objection was sufficiently specific to allow the trial court to rule on the issue

Summary of this case from Herron v. Century BMW

finding that for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been: “ raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity”

Summary of this case from Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina

finding issues must be "raised to and ruled upon in the trial court" to be considered on appeal

Summary of this case from State v. Goodman

finding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Hall

recognizing that trial judge has discretion to determine how a case is submitted to the jury

Summary of this case from Freeman v.

stating to preserve an issue at trial for appellate review, the issue must be: raised to and ruled upon by the trial court; raised by the appellant; raised in a timely manner; and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

noting that an issue must be raised with "sufficient specificity" to be preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Kosciusko v. Parham

delineating four requirements for issue preservation

Summary of this case from Parker v. Nat'l Honorary Beta Club

providing an argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal but must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved

Summary of this case from In re Care & Treatment of Asquith

stating an issue must have been " raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, raised by the appellant, raised in a timely manner, and raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity" to be preserved for appellate review"

Summary of this case from Chamblee v. Anderson Cnty. Fire Dep't

stating an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal but must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved

Summary of this case from Powell v. Boheler

noting that under our rules of preservation "it is a litigant's duty to bring to the [trial] court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error"

Summary of this case from Witcher v. State
Case details for

Scdot v. First Carolina

Case Details

Full title:SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. FIRST CAROLINA…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 27, 2007

Citations

372 S.C. 295 (S.C. 2007)
641 S.E.2d 903

Citing Cases

Nelson v. Nelson

Additionally, we find Wife's argument that Husband should be estopped from seeking relief due to his own bad…

Scalise Devt. v. Tidelands Investments

This argument is not preserved for our review, as it was never raised to and ruled upon by the special…