(concurring in result).
If a “question” is not properly before us, then it is axiomatic that we should not rule nor comment upon it. See Lehr v. Department of Labor, 391 N.W.2d 205, 207 (S.D.1986); Weber v. South Dakota Dep’t of Labor, 323 N.W.2d 117,120 (S.D.1982); Estate of Assmus, 254 N.W.2d 159, 163 n. 8 (S.D.1977).
The settled record is the sole evidence of the trial court’s proceedings. Pearson v. Adams, 279 N.W.2d 674 (S.D.1979). See also Reed v. Heath, 383 N.W.2d 873 (S.D.1986). A trial court must be permitted to correct its error or a reviewing court will not review it on appeal. State v. King, 400 N.W.2d 878, 880 (S.D.1987) (citing Cooper v. Cooper, 299 N.W.2d 798, 800 (S.D.1980)). Accord Stark v. Stark, 79 S.D. 178, 109 N.W.2d 904 (1961). An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Sioux Valley Hosp. Ass’n v. Bryan, 399 N.W.2d 352, 356 n. 2 (S.D.1987); Romey v. Landers, 392 N.W.2d 415, 420 (S.D.1986); Weaver v. Boortz, 301 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1981). The final paragraph of the majority opinion is gratuitous. A gratuitous remark, by a trial court, or by the reviewing court, is a remark or comment which is not called for by the circumstances or unwarranted. If this Court enters a new era, with new Justices on this Court, of commenting on “questions” that are “not properly before us,” where will it lead us? And what have we done to our old standards of review which have been prevalent in this Court for decades?