Gillespie v. Seymour, 68691
Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 68691,68691 |
Citation | 853 P.2d 692,253 Kan. 169 |
Parties | Warren Brown GILLESPIE and Polly Gillespie Townsend, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Dorothea Wofford SEYMOUR, as Co-Trustee of the Brown-Gillespie Trust Estate; Dorothea Wofford Seymour, individually; Paul A. Seymour, Jr.*; Paul Seymour, III; Ruth Bassett; Robert W. Burdge; Grant Thornton, an accounting partnership; Arrowhead Petroleum, Inc., a Kansas corporation; and Big Springs Drilling, Inc., a Kansas corporation, Defendants/ *Appellant, and Dorothea Wofford SEYMOUR, as Co-Trustee of the Brown-Gillespie Trust Estate; and Dorothea Wofford Seymour, Individually, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. James Paul GILLESPIE, Executor of the Estate of Pauline Brown Gillespie, Deceased, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When determining the amount of punitive damages to be awarded under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3701, it is incumbent on the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact to afford meaningful appellate review thereof.
Terry L. Mann of Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, Wichita, argued the cause, and Robert Martin, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Jerry D. Bogle of Young, Bogle, McCausland, Wells & Clark, P.A., Wichita, argued the cause, and Glenn D. Young, Jr., of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellees.
This is an appeal from an award of punitive damages entered in an action by the beneficiaries of a trust for recovery of damages for oil and gas investments made by the Trust.
The factual background is complex and is set forth in Gillespie v. Seymour, 250 Kan. 123, 823 P.2d 782 (1991), hereinafter referred to as Gillespie I. Originally, punitive damage awards were entered as follows:
For the period prior to July 1, 1987 Dorothea Seymour $2,000,000 Paul A. Seymour, Jr. $2,000,000 Paul A. Seymour, III $ 25,000 For the period after July 1, 1987 Dorothea and Seymour, Jr., jointly $ 89,250
In Gillespie I, we held the entry of punitive damage awards against Dorothea and Paul Seymour, III, were improper and reversed the same. As to the punitive damage awards against Paul Seymour, Jr., we stated:
'(e) Except as provided by subsection (f), no award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to this section shall exceed the lesser of:
(1) The annual gross income earned by the defendant, as determined by the court based upon the defendant's highest gross annual income earned for any one of the five years immediately before the act for which such damages are awarded; or
(2) $5 million.
'(f) In lieu of the limitation provided by subsection (e), if the court finds that the profitability of the defendant's misconduct exceeds or is expected to exceed the limitation of subsection (e), the limitation on the amount of exemplary or punitive damages which the court may award shall be an amount equal to 1 1/2 times the amount of profit which the defendant gained or is expected to gain as a result of the defendant's misconduct.
'(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any action governed by another statute establishing or limiting the amount of exemplary or punitive damages, or prescribing procedures for the award of such damages, in such action.
'(h) As used in this section the terms defined in K.S.A. 60-3401 and amendments thereto shall have the meaning provided by that statute.
'(i) The provisions of this section shall apply only [to] an action based upon a cause of action accruing on or after July 1, 1987 and before July 1, 1988.'
250 Kan. at 145-46, 823 P.2d 782.
On remand, no additional evidence was submitted on the issue of punitive damages. Oral arguments were heard and briefs filed. The district court's decision thereon is set forth in its memorandum opinion as follows:
The parties agree that an appropriate award under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3701(e)(1) would be $865,861 (Seymour's highest gross annual income in the statutory five-year period). The district court stated that the profitability of defendant's misconduct exceeded the limitation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3701(e)(1) and that the award should be entered under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3701(f). The award was fixed at $2,089,250--the exact amount of the aggregate punitive damage award entered against Seymour, Jr., in Gillespie I. There is no indication as to how this figure was reached under subsection (f) of the statute. We have only the enigmatic statement, "I will not change the amount of the award because of the reversals."
What the district court characterized as plaintiffs' suggestion that the maximum award under subsection (f) is $6,439,039 is apparently based upon one and one-half times the compensatory damages entered in Gillespie I. On appeal, plaintiffs argue the award is supportable on the basis of the $2.6 million invested in Arrowhead Petroleum, Inc., by the Trust which, when multiplied one and one-half times, comes to $3.9 million. There is no punitive damage award against Arrowhead, of which Seymour owns 51 percent. Seymour contends there is no evidence admitted from which his "profit" could fairly be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hawkinson v. Bennett
...it is incumbent on the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact to afford meaningful appellate review thereof.' [Citing Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, Syl. 1, 853 P.2d 692 (1993) (Gillespie II ).]" 262 Kan. at 597, 938 P.2d Instruction No. 26 stated: "In connection with his clai......
-
Mynatt v. Collis
...it is incumbent on the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact to afford meaningful appellate review thereof.' [Quoting Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, Syl. ¶ 1, 853 P.2d 692 (1993) (Gillespie II.)]" 262 Kan. 597. "Punitive damages, as well as actual damages, are proper where a ......
-
Cooke v. Gillespie
...Gillespie v. Seymour, 263 Kan. 650, 952 P.2d 1313 (1998); Gillespie v. Seymour, 255 Kan. 774, 877 P.2d 409 (1994); Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, 853 P.2d 692 (1993); Gillespie v. Seymour, 250 Kan. 123, 823 P.2d 782 (1991); Cooke v. Gillespie, No. 91,078, ___ Kan.App.2d ___, 101 P.3d 7......
-
Smith v. Printup
...punitive damages award. See Folks v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 243 Kan. 57, 77, 755 P.2d 1319 (1988). In Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, 172-73, 853 P.2d 692 (1993) (Gillespie II ) (quoting Henderson v. Hassur, 225 Kan. 678, 694, 697, 594 P.2d 650 [1979] ), we noted the change brought b......