(Emphasis supplied.) See Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, Inc., 293 Ga.App. 854, 855(1), 668 S.E.2d 476 (2008) (“[T]his Court will not consider matters argued for the first time on appeal and not raised and ruled upon in the trial court. ‘We are limited to considering only those grounds raised and ruled on below by the trial court and may not consider a basis for appeal not presented at the trial level.’
(Emphasis supplied.) See Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, Inc., 293 Ga. App. 854, 855 (1) (668 SE2d 476) (2008) ("[T]his Court will not consider matters argued for the first time on appeal and not raised and ruled upon in the trial court. 'We are limited to considering only those grounds raised and ruled on below by the trial court and may not consider a basis for appeal not presented at the trial level.'").
We nevertheless question whether the statutory attorney fees provision may be applied in the context of this case in light of the doctrine of judicial immunity. However, because the parties do not present arguments on that basis and that issue was not raised and ruled upon in the proceedings below, we shall not address it for the first time on appeal. See Lowery v. Atlanta Heart Assocs., 266 Ga. App. 402, 404 (2) ( 597 S.E.2d 494) (2004); Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855 (1) ( 668 S.E.2d 476) (2008) (Generally, "[w]e are limited to considering only those grounds raised and ruled on below by the trial court and may not consider a basis for appeal not presented at the trial level.") (citation and punctuation omitted). We note that "Qludicial officers have been shielded from civil actions for acts done in their judicial character from the earliest dawn of jurisprudence down to the latest reported cases."
"It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider matters argued for the first time on appeal and not raised and ruled upon in the trial court." Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855 (1) ( 668 SE2d 476) (2008). Having failed to respond to the requests for admission, and having failed to file any motion to have their admissions withdrawn in the court below, the Stephens cannot seek remedial action in the first instance at the appellate level.
See Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996); Murray, supra. See USCR 6.3; Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855-856 (3) ( 668 SE2d 476) (2008). Finally, McCullers points out that the trial court had scheduled a hearing on what it described as a "Motion for Summary Judgment."
Moreover, the record shows that Calhoun was served with GEICO's motion, but it does not demonstrate that Calhoun filed a timely request for oral hearing on the motion. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3; Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855-856 (3) ( 668 SE2d 476) (2008). See Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3.
3. Wife contends the case was not ripe for a final hearing because husband did not complete a parenting workshop previously mandated by the trial court. Because this contention was not raised in the trial court, it will not be addressed on appeal. Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 495, 422 S.E.2d 188 (1992); Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, Inc., 293 Ga.App. 854, 855, 668 S.E.2d 476 (2008). Judgment affirmed.All the Justices concur.