See Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 634, 622 S.E.2d 733, 745 (Ct. App. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 379 S.C. 564, 666 S.E.2d 892 (2008). Accordingly, we find this question is not yet ripe for review.

The first question of statutory interpretation is whether the statute's meaning is clear on its face. Wade v. Berkeley County, 348 S.C. 224, 229, 559 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2002); Eagle Container Co.,LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622, 622 S.E.2d 733, 738 (Ct.App. 2005) ( cert. granted January 31, 2007). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed, and this Court has no right to impose another meaning. Catawba Indian Tribe of SouthCarolina v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 524-26, 642 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2007); see Vaughn v. Bernhardt, 345 S.C. 196, 198, 547 S.E.2d 869, 870 (2001).

"In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pittman v. Grand Strand Entm't, Inc., 363 S.C. 531, 536, 611 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2005); Eagle Container Co., LLC v.County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005); B B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 603 S.E.2d 629 (Ct.App. 2004). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.