money to pay his mother the $12,500 he borrowed for the tuition and the rest was used to pay off two car loans. McCall admitted he did not pay interest on the loan from his mother. 4 . IKON questioned Dr. Alford’s qualification and his testimony regarding McCall's loss of earning capacity based upon the fact Dr. Alford was not a vocational expert, but the circuit court qualified Dr. Alford as requested and allowed the evidence, finding it was an issue which could be explored on cross-examination. 5 . Additionally, even if McCall contends the trial court made a mathematical computation error, it was incumbent upon McCall to raise the issue by way of a Rule 59 or 60, SCRCP motion to preserve the matter on appeal. See Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210, 467 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.1996)
holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review holding that the issue of the applicability of section 8211 of the real property article to the facts of the case had not been preserved for appellate review where the issue was raised for the first time in the appellants motion to alter or amend the judgment under rule 2534 holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding issue was not preserved on appeal where appellants never filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to clarify the order pursuant to rule 59 scrcp nor seek clarification pursuant to rule 60a scrcp and issue was therefore not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court