Cerny v. Salter, No. 23841
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | CHANDLER; HARWELL; MOORE |
| Citation | 429 S.E.2d 809,311 S.C. 430 |
| Parties | Edward J. CERNY and Betsy R. Cerny, Appellant, v. Billy T. SALTER, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 23841 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1993 |
Page 809
v.
Billy T. SALTER, Respondent.
Decided April 19, 1993.
Page 810
[311 S.C. 431] Bernard L. Friedman, Columbia, for appellant.
Billy T. Salter, pro se.
CHANDLER, Justice:
In this appeal from the Master in Equity, Appellants (Cernys) challenge the constitutionality of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-41-30(11)(B) (Supp.1992). We affirm.
The Cernys obtained a judgment against Respondent Billy Salter for $5,400 plus attorney's fees. The Cernys, in supplementary proceedings to collect the judgment, attempted to attach an annuity which Salter received from the settlement of a medical malpractice suit.
[311 S.C. 432] The Master held Salter's annuity from the malpractice suit exempt from attachment pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 15-41-30(11)(B) (Supp.1992) (Homestead exemption), which provides:
Page 811
The following real and personal property of a debtor domiciled in this State is exempt from attachment, levy, and sale under any mesne or final process issued by any court or bankruptcy proceeding.
(11) The debtor's right to receive or property that is traceable to:
(B) a payment on account of bodily injury of the debtor or the wrongful death or bodily injury of another individual to whom the debtor was or is a dependent.
This appeal follows.
1. Is S.C.Code Ann. § 15-41-30(11)(B) violative of the equal protection clauses of the United States and South Carolina Constitutions?
2. Does S.C.Code Ann. § 15-41-30(11)(B) violate due process and impair the obligation of contracts?
A. Equal Protection and Due Process
The Cernys first contend that § 15-41-30(11) denies them equal protection on the ground it serves no compelling government interest. We disagree.
In determining whether a statute violates equal protection, this Court accords "great deference to a legislatively created classification, and the classification will be sustained if it is not plainly arbitrary and there is any reasonable hypothesis to support it." Foster v. Dept. of Hwys. & Pub. Transp., 306 S.C. 519, 413 S.E.2d 31, 36 (1992). The fact that the classification may result in some inequity does not render it unconstitutional. Id.
Here, the rationale for Homestead exemptions is well established: to protect from creditors a certain portion of the debtor's property. Elliott v. Mackorell, 19 S.C. 238 (1883). The absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2014-002728
...not render it unconstitutional." Davis v. County of Greenville , 313 S.C. 459, 465, 443 S.E.2d 383, 386 (1994) (citing Cerny v. Salter , 311 S.C. 430, 432, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1993) ). While restaurants and liquors stores may both sell alcohol, common sense dictates that the former, which ......
-
Sc Dept. of Social Services v. Roe, No. 4191.
...innovative program for the education of the mentally retarded focusing on parenting skills, family planning, and sexuality. Id. at 429, 429 S.E.2d at 809. The DSS social worker along with the administrator of the educational program agreed, and the Court reversed, remanding the case to the ......
-
Holden v. Cribb, No. 3462.
...support." Scholtec v. Estate of Reeves, 327 S.C. 551, 560, 490 S.E.2d 603, 607 (Ct.App.1997) (citation omitted); accord Cerny v. Salter, 311 S.C. 430, 432, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 We hold that Singleton, though incarcerated, is entitled to the protection of the homestead exemption. "The act and......
-
Scholtec v. Estate of Reeves, No. 2704
...or wrongful death payment is to compensate the victim for something lost, rather than to provide a windfall award." Cerny v. Salter, 311 S.C. 430, 432-33, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 Preliminarily, we note that at the time of his death, Mr. Reeves was clearly entitled to the exemption. There is no ......
-
Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2014-002728
...not render it unconstitutional." Davis v. County of Greenville , 313 S.C. 459, 465, 443 S.E.2d 383, 386 (1994) (citing Cerny v. Salter , 311 S.C. 430, 432, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1993) ). While restaurants and liquors stores may both sell alcohol, common sense dictates that the former, which ......
-
Sc Dept. of Social Services v. Roe, No. 4191.
...innovative program for the education of the mentally retarded focusing on parenting skills, family planning, and sexuality. Id. at 429, 429 S.E.2d at 809. The DSS social worker along with the administrator of the educational program agreed, and the Court reversed, remanding the case to the ......
-
Holden v. Cribb, No. 3462.
...support." Scholtec v. Estate of Reeves, 327 S.C. 551, 560, 490 S.E.2d 603, 607 (Ct.App.1997) (citation omitted); accord Cerny v. Salter, 311 S.C. 430, 432, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 We hold that Singleton, though incarcerated, is entitled to the protection of the homestead exemption. "The act and......
-
Scholtec v. Estate of Reeves, No. 2704
...or wrongful death payment is to compensate the victim for something lost, rather than to provide a windfall award." Cerny v. Salter, 311 S.C. 430, 432-33, 429 S.E.2d 809, 811 Preliminarily, we note that at the time of his death, Mr. Reeves was clearly entitled to the exemption. There is no ......