Home Builders Ass'n of S.C. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Dorchester Cnty.

• Decision Date: 11 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 27315.,27315.
• Citation: 405 S.C. 458,748 S.E.2d 230
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA and the Charleston–Trident Home Builders Association, Inc., Appellants, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 OF DORCHESTER COUNTY and the Board of Trustees for Dorchester School District No. 2, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2011–195208.

405 S.C. 458

748 S.E.2d 230

The HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA and the Charleston–Trident Home Builders Association, Inc., Appellants,

v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 OF DORCHESTER COUNTY and the Board of Trustees for Dorchester School District No. 2, Respondents.Appellate Case No. 2011–195208.

No. 27315.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Feb. 6, 2013.

Decided Sept. 11, 2013.

Frederick A. Gertz and Phong Thi Van Nguyen, both of Gertz & Moore, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Sarah Patrick Spruill, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Greenville, and Charlton De Saussure, Jr. of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Charleston, for Respondents.

Justice PLEICONES.

This is an appeal from an order granting respondents' motion for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), SCRCP, and dismissing appellants' complaint. Because we find issues of fact raised by the complaint that must be resolved before the constitutionality of 2009 Act No. 99(Act) can be determined, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Act permits respondent School District to impose an impact fee to be paid by developers on “new residential dwelling units constructed within the school district.” Respondent Trustees adopted the impact fee by resolution effective June 23, 2009. Appellants, each an organization of home builders, brought this declaratory judgment suit seeking injunctive relief against respondents challenging the constitutionality of the Act under provisions of the state constitution requiring statewide uniformity (S.C. Const. art. VIII, § 14(6))¹ and limiting special legislation ( S.C. Const. art. III, § 34).

Respondents moved for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). A judgment on the pleadings shall be granted “where there is no issue of fact raised by the complaint that would entitle the plaintiff to judgment if resolved in plaintiff's favor.” Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143, 687 S.E.2d 47 (2009) citing Russell v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 86, 406 S.E.2d 338 (1991). A judgment on the pleadings is “a drastic procedure.” Russell, supra, cited in Falk v. Sadler, 341 S.C. 281, 533 S.E.2d 350 (Ct.App.2000). The circuit judge granted the motion.²

South Carolina Const. art. III, § 34(IX), provides that “where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted.” Legislation regarding education is not exempt from this requirement even though art. XI, § 3, gives the General Assembly more discretion with respect to legislation impacting a school district than it has in other areas. Charleston County School Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 558, 713 S.E.2d 604, 607–608 (2011) (internal citation omitted). Charleston County holds that a constitutional challenge predicated on a special legislation claim is analogous to one based upon equal protection. Special legislation is not unconstitutional if there is “a substantial distinction having reference to the subject matter of the proposed legislation, between the objects or places embraced in such legislation and the objects and places excluded.... In other words, the General Assembly must have a logical basis and a sound reason for resorting to special legislation.” Horry County v. Horry County Higher Educ. Comm'n, 306 S.C. 416, 419, 412 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1991) (citations omitted) cited with approval in Charleston County, 393 S.C. at 558–559, 713 S.E.2d at 608.

The Act itself is silent on any unique or special funding needs of respondent School District.³ Further, the complaint alleges the Act applies only to respondent School District, and that the district's funding needs are no different from many other districts in the state, that it does not have unique funding requirements, and that other similarly situated school districts are faced with the same issues. It specifically alleges:

The Act's application to a single school district without any peculiar or unique conditions, resulting in special treatment, violates the provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, in particular art. III, § 34 (limiting “special legislation”) and art. VIII, § 14(6) (requiring statewide uniformity).

The complaint thus alleges facts which, if proven, would render the Act unconstitutional special legislation.

The circuit court and respondents rely on a single sentence found in Bradley v. Cherokee School Dist. No. One, 322 S.C. 181, 470 S.E.2d 570 (1996): “A law that is special only in the sense that it imposes a lawful tax limited in application and incidence to persons or property within a certain school district does not contravene the provisions of Article III, § 34(IX).” Here, we are concerned with an impact fee, not a tax, and one that is placed on only some persons and not others.⁴ Moreover, since Bradley was decided, we have clarified that all challenges to education-related special legislation are subject to the test set forth in Kizer v. Clark, 360 S.C. 86, 600 S.E.2d 529 (2004). Charleston County, supra.

We find the complaint alleges facts which, if resolved in appellants' favor, would result in a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional.The order granting respondents' Rule 12(c) motion is therefore

REVERSED.

BEATTY and HEARN, JJ., concur.

KITTREDGE, J., concurring in result only.

TOAL, C.J., dissenting in a separate opinion.

Chief Justice TOAL.

Respectfully, I dissent. I would affirm the circuit court's grant of respondents' motion for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), SCRCP, because, in my assessment, appellants' complaint does not raise an issue of fact that would entitle appellants to judgment if resolved in their favor. The majority finds appellants' allegation that respondent School District does not have unique funding needs, if proven, would render the Act unconstitutional special legislation. In doing so, it is my opinion the majority improperly applies the constitutional prohibition of special legislation to education-related legislation.

Article III, section 34(IX) of the South Carolina Constitution prohibits the General Assembly from enacting local laws “where a general law can be made applicable.” S.C. Const. art. III, § 34(IX). However, “special legislation is not unconstitutional where there is ‘a substantial distinction having reference to the subject matter of the proposed legislation, between the objects or places embraced in such legislation and the objects and places excluded.’ ” Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552, 558–59, 713 S.E.2d 604, 608 (2011) (quoting Horry Cnty. v. Horry Cnty. Higher Educ. Comm'n, 306 S.C. 416, 419, 412 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1991)). Thus, “the General Assembly must have a logical basis and sound reason for resorting to special legislation.” Id. The purpose of restricting local or special legislation is to promote uniformity in state laws where possible, and to avoid duplicative or conflicting laws on the same subject. Med. Soc'y of S.C. v. MUSC, 334 S.C. 270, 279, 513 S.E.2d 352, 357 (1999).

This Court is deferential to the General Assembly when determining the constitutionality of a local law and will not declare it unconstitutional “unless its repugnance to the Constitution is clear beyond a reasonable doubt” or “there has been a clear and palpable abuse of legislative discretion.” Id. at 279, 513 S.E.2d at 357;Sirrine v. State, 132 S.C. 241, 248, 128 S.E. 172, 174 (1925), overruled on other grounds, McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985). Even greater deference is given when evaluating local laws related to school matters. See McElveen v. Stokes, 240 S.C. 1, 10, 124 S.E.2d 592, 596 (1962). The Court has explained that in evaluating local legislation involving public education, the constitutional restrictions on special legislation must be viewed in light of the General Assembly's Article XI duty to “provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State.” S.C. Const. art. XI, § 3; McElveen, 240 S.C. at 10, 124 S.E.2d at 596. These cases and constitutional provisions make clear the scope of legislative power is broader on the topic of schools, and consequently, this Court has traditionally sustained local laws related to the state's public education system. See Bradley v. Cherokee Sch. Dist., 322 S.C. 181, 470 S.E.2d 570 (1996); Smythe v. Stroman, 251 S.C. 277, 162 S.E.2d 168 (1968); Moseley v. Welch, 209 S.C. 19, 39 S.E.2d 133 (1946); Walker v. Bennett, 125 S.C. 389, 118 S.E. 779 (1923).

By passing the Act allowing respondent School District to impose an impact fee, the General Assembly signaled its belief that conditions present in Dorchester County's School District Number Two made it necessary to impose an impact fee to support its public education system. That is, the General Assembly opined that in order to fulfill its Article XI duty to provide for the “maintenance and support of a system of free public schools,” an impact fee was necessary to offset the additional demand for public facilities created by new developments in Dorchester County. SeeS.C. Const. art. XI, § 3; McElveen, 240 S.C. at 10, 124 S.E.2d at 596. We have always provided great deference to the General Assembly in making these decisions, and the same respect should be afforded here.

In footnote two, the majority opines “the dissent loses sight of the sole issue before the Court in this appeal: does the complaint raise any issue of fact which, if resolved in appellants' favor, would entitle them to a judgment.” The majority finds appellants' allegation that respondent School District is without unique funding needs, if proven, would entitle them to relief. However, in Bradley, this Court stated, “A law that is special only in the sense that it imposes a lawful tax limited in application and incidence to persons or property within a certain school district does not contravene the provisions of Article III, § 34(IX). Individual districts may impose a legal tax limited in application and incidence to persons or property within...