 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
AMERICAN SERVICE CORP. OF S.C. v. HICKLE9/20/1993
American Service Corporation of South Carolina (American)
appeals an Order holding that the Homestead Exemption Act, S.C.
Code Ann. ยง 15-41-30 (11) (B) (Supp. 1992) deprives
Respondent Bonnie Hickle (Hickle), as a non-resident of this
State, equal protection of the laws.
We reverse.
FACTS
In September, 1990, American obtained a $32,000 judgment against Hickle, then a South Carolina resident. Subsequent to the judgment, Hickle became a Virginia resident; American has been unable to collect its judgment.
Thereafter, Hickle settled a personal injury lawsuit in South Carolina for $125,000. American seeks to attach proceeds of the settlement in satisfaction of its judgment.
Trial court awarded Hickle the benefit of the exemption, holding that "to allow American to seize the settlement proceeds would be a denial of equal protection."
ISSUE
Does the Homestead Exemption statute, in limiting the exemption for personal injury awards to South Carolina residents only, deprive non-residents of this State equal protection of the laws?
DISCUSSION
"In determining whether a statute violates the equal protection clauses of state and federal constitutions, we must give great deference to the classification passed by the
Here, the classification of residents versus non-residents satisfies the three-prong test in Samson: (1) it is reasonably related to the legislative purpose of protecting South Carolina residents from financial indigency; (2) the members of the classes are treated alike since all residents are entitled to the exemption; and, (3) the classification is reasonably based upon South Carolina's legitimate interest in preventing its citizens from becoming dependent upon the State for support.
The fact that a classification results in some inequity does not render it unconstitutional. Foster v. S.C.D.H.P.T., 306 S.C. 519, 527, 413 S.E.2d 31, 36 (1992). A statute enacted pursuant to the legislature's powers is presumptively constitutional. Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, 290 S.C. 415, 351 S.E.2d 155 (1986).
In the recent case of Cerny v. Salter, ___ S.C. ___, 429 S.E.2d 809 (1993), we noted that the rationale for homestead exemptions is "to protect from creditors a certain portion of the debtor's property." [Citing Elliott v. Mackorell, 19 S.C. 238 (1983)]. Moreover, this Court has previously held that a classification between resident and non-resident vendors is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of directing benefits to its citizens. See Gary Concrete Products, Inc. v. Riley, 285 S.C. 498, 331 S.E.2d 335 (1985).
We find no equal protection violation. The judgment below is
Reversed.
HARWELL, C.J., FINNEY and MOORE, JJ., concur.
TOAL, J., concurs in result in separate opinion.
Page 1 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|