Fairway Ford, Inc. v. County of Greenville, O

• Decision Date: 07 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 24496,No. T,No. O,O,T,24496
• Citation: 324 S.C. 84,476 S.E.2d 490
• Parties: FAIRWAY FORD, INC., d/b/a Fairway Ford, BMS, Inc., d/b/a Breakaway Honda, Big "O" Dodge of Greenville, Inc., d/b/a Big "O" Dodge, Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., d/b/a Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth, Fairway Management Company, d/b/a Heritage Lincoln-Mercury, Century Auto Sales, Inc., d/b/a Century BMW/Saab, Sitton Buick Company, Inc. of Greenville, d/b/a Sitton Buick, Toyota of Greenville, Inc., Gore's Corvette World, Inc., Bruce Vehicle/Equipment Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Gary Bruce's Greenville Auto Auction, Boyce Clardy, d/b/a Liberty Motors, Bill Regan, d/b/a Regan Auto Sales, D.B. Carter Used Cars Lotne, Inc., and D.B. Carter Used Cars Lothree, Inc., for Themselves, for Motor Vehicle Dealers and Wholesalers in Greenville County and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, Robert W. Leach, Chairman of the Greenville County Council, Richard A. Ashmore, Rick Blackwell, George Bomar, C. Wade Cleveland, Bob Cook, Rev. E.D. Dixon, Richard Herdklotz, Bunk Johnson, James F. Patterson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. and Paul B. Wickensimer, As Members, of Greenville County Council, and William J. Estabrook, former Administrator for Greenville County, Appellants. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 490

476 S.E.2d 490

324 S.C. 84

FAIRWAY FORD, INC., d/b/a Fairway Ford, BMS, Inc., d/b/a

Breakaway Honda, Big "O" Dodge of Greenville, Inc., d/b/a

Big "O" Dodge, Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., d/b/a

Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth, Fairway Management Company,

d/b/a Heritage Lincoln-Mercury, Century Auto Sales, Inc.,

d/b/a Century BMW/Saab, Sitton Buick Company, Inc. of

Greenville, d/b/a Sitton Buick, Toyota of Greenville, Inc.,

Gore's Corvette World, Inc., Bruce Vehicle/Equipment Auction

Services, Inc., d/b/a Gary Bruce's Greenville Auto Auction,

Boyce Clardy, d/b/a Liberty Motors, Bill Regan, d/b/a Regan

Auto Sales, D.B. Carter Used Cars Lot No. One, Inc., and

D.B. Carter Used Cars Lot No. Three, Inc., for Themselves,

for Motor Vehicle Dealers and Wholesalers in Greenville

County and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, Robert W. Leach, Chairman of the

Greenville County Council, Richard A. Ashmore, Rick

Blackwell, George Bomar, C. Wade Cleveland, Bob Cook, Rev.

E.D. Dixon, Richard Herdklotz, Bunk Johnson, James F.

Patterson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. and Paul B. Wickensimer,

As Members, of Greenville County Council, and William J.

Estabrook, former Administrator for Greenville County, Appellants.

No. 24496.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 7, 1994.

Decided Sept. 23, 1996.

Judith S. Burk, Greenville County Attorney, Greenville, for appellants.

Harvey G. Sanders, Jr. and H. Gibert Sanders, III, of Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann, P.C., Greenville, for respondents.

FINNEY, Justice

Greenville County appeals an order holding its ordinance imposing a $200 per plate fee on all automobile dealer and wholesaler license tags unlawful as an improper uniform service charge, and as violative of equal protection. We affirm.

A local government may lawfully impose a uniform service charge ¹ if the charge meets these conditions: (1) it is imposed for a particular governmental service rather than for the general support of the government; and (2) the persons required to pay the charge derive a special benefit from the improvement made with the charge proceeds. Brown v. County of Horry, 308 S.C. 180, 417 S.E.2d 565 (1992); Hospitality Ass'n v. County of Charleston, 320 S.C. 219, 464 S.E.2d 113 (1995) (Finney, A.J., dissenting). Greenville County asserts the special benefit conferred upon dealers and wholesalers by the proceeds of this fee, which is designated for use to improve county roads, is an increased retail sales price for the cars first driven with dealer or wholesaler tags. The County alleges better roads mean fewer "dings" from debris and fewer paint repairs, and hence a greater profit for car dealers. The circuit court found this asserted benefit inured to all cars and not just to those...