With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". challenged the adequacy of the BEA at trial is an exhibit it introduced regarding the 1077 methodology and testimony by district personnel that the BEA is exhausted by basic education costs. But in its complaint, the Alliance admittedly did not seek declaratory relief with respect to the BEA; instead, it sought relief regarding only the constitutionality of the special education funding scheme and, thus, a challenge to the adequacy of the BEA is outside the scope of its complaint. See In re Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wn.2d 612, 617, 772 P.2d 1013 (1989) (a court has no jurisdiction to grant relief beyond that sought in the complaint). Because Alliance did not challenge the adequacy of the BEA below, it may not do so on appeal. Martin v. Johnson, 141 Wn. App. 611, 617, 170 P.3d 1198 (2007) (<HOLDING>); see RAP 2.5(a). B. The Safety Net 1.

A: holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal
B: holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court
C: holding that generally appellate courts will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal
D: holding that appellate court will not normally address issue raised for the first time on appeal
C.