to the denial of the motion to alter or amend, “we will not allow the appellant’s reference to raising the issue in a post-trial motion to serve as a smokescreen obscuring the earlier and fatal non-preservation.” Id. at 484, 798 A.2d 1195. In the case mb judice, Cave declared in his brief that this appeal “challenges only the order to award [ ] Elliott back pay and benefits.” Consequently, because Cave did not raise the issue of the authority of the circuit court to award back pay and benefits at the trial that resulted in such award, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review, notwithstanding Cave’s subsequent raising of the issue in his Motion for Reconsideration. See Law Offices of Taiwo Agbaje, P.C. v. JLH Props., II LLC, 169 Md.App. 355, 371-72, 901 A.2d 249 (2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Brown v. Contemporary OB/GYN
holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding 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 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 not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review