the first valid and binding decision on the construction of the golf course development by the Council. As a result, the Okersons assert that the settlement decision essentially became a “legislative” act. While this may be an interesting question, it was not the one presented to the circuit court. It is advanced here for the first time. The Okersons’ position requires this Court to speculate on the legal relationship between the parties and the validity of the underlying agreement in contravention to the stipulated facts and settled record. Given the absence of any supportive record evidence or any indication this argument was presented to the circuit court, we will not address this issue for the first time on appeal. See Argus Leader v. Hagen, 2007 SD 96, ¶ 34, 739 N.W.2d 475, 484 (<HOLDING>). The Okersons’ argument suffers from the fatal
holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding a claim not previously raised or ruled on by the circuit court was waived in an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus