Opinion ID: 1359967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Equal Protection/Wealth based classification

Text: Appellants next assert County divided all of the citizens in the unincorporated areas of Charleston into unlawful racial groups, in violation of equal protection. This argument was first raised at the summary judgment hearing, and was quite different from the allegations of their complaint, which essentially alleged it was an equal protection violation to treat people in unincorporated areas differently than those in corporate limits, and that the ordinance required those people in unincorporated areas to spend exorbitant sums to comply with the UDO. Further, the circuit court did not specifically rule on appellants' assertions concerning the settlement areas. Accordingly, this argument is not preserved for review. State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176, 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000) (equal protection argument not preserved for review where lower court did not address it and appellant did not raise it in motion to reconsider). Moreover, there is simply no evidence in the record bearing out appellants' assertions that the ordinance is based upon impermissible race or wealth-based classifications. We find summary judgment was properly granted. The judgment below is AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.