With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). The circuit court held “[u]nder the clear and unambiguous limitations of the statute a third party claim by BPV cannot be paid from the state fund.” We agree. On appeal, Worsley argues BPV had only a beneficial interest in tract # 60 and therefore had no control over the use of the property at the time of the release. At trial, however, the parties did not dispute that BPV was the owner of tracts # 60 and # 79 at all relevant times, including the time when the contamination occurred in 1991. From the record before us, we do not see where Worsley made this argument to the trial court. Accordingly, the argument is not properly before this court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Worsley argues the language limiting third

A: holding that issues must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review
B: holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
C: 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
D: holding issues must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for appellate review
C.