Klippel v. Heintz, 53291

• Decision Date: 08 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 53291,53291
• Citation: 231 Kan. 312,644 P.2d 428
• Parties: B. W. KLIPPEL, Jr., Appellant, v. James W. HEINTZ and Helen J. Heintz, husband and wife, also dba Iverness Oil Company, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 428

644 P.2d 428

231 Kan. 312

B. W. KLIPPEL, Jr., Appellant, v. James W. HEINTZ and Helen J. Heintz, husband and wife, also dba Iverness Oil Company, Appellees.

No. 53291.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

May 8, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action by the operator of certain oil and gas leases located in Woodson County against the lessees in such leases, the record is examined and it is held the trial court committed error in (1) sustaining defendants' motion to dismiss the proceedings on the basis that defendants were not doing business in Kansas and were not amenable to personal jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-308(b), and (2) dismissing the proceedings on the alternative grounds of forum non conveniens.

Thomas L. Wilson, Yates Center, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Thomas P. Mikulka, of the law offices of John C. Rubow, Chanute, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellees.

HOLMES, Justice:

Plaintiff, B. W. Klippel, Jr., appeals from an order of the trial court sustaining a motion by the defendants for dismissal of the action due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and alternatively based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The lawsuit grows out of the operation of two oil and gas leases located in the East Rose Field Unit in Woodson County. In 1974, the defendants purchased a 15/16ths of 7/8ths working interest in the Bishop North lease from Equity East Oil Trust and in 1976, purchased a similar interest in the Young A lease from Mr. Klippel. Klippel was designated the operator of both leases in written agreements executed or ratified by the defendants. Defendants are residents of the State of Illinois and Klippel is a resident of Missouri, although he maintains a home in Yates Center. The assignments of the leases and the operating agreements were executed by all the parties outside the state of Kansas.

Under the terms of the operating agreements, Klippel has the responsibility for the development and operation of the properties covered by the leases and the defendants are to pay all expenses for labor and materials incurred by Klippel. Plaintiff's petition sets forth three causes of action: (1) a claim for unpaid operating expense incurred under the agreement on the Bishop North lease, (2) a claim for unpaid operating expense incurred under the agreement on the Young A lease, and (3) a claim for unpaid interest on the principal balance of an oil payment in favor of Klippel on the Young A lease. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the defendants were not doing business in the State of Kansas and were not subject to the long-arm jurisdiction of the Kansas courts. K.S.A. 60-308(b) provides in pertinent part:

"(b ) Submitting to jurisdiction-process. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits said person, and, if an individual, his or her personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:

(1) The transaction of any business within this state."

Service of process was effected on the defendants in Illinois as provided in the statute. Defendants contend that plaintiff's suit is merely to recover money on a contractual obligation growing out of contracts entered into outside the State of Kansas between non-residents of Kansas and as such they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Kansas. The trial court found that plaintiff's causes of action did not arise from the transaction of business within the state as contemplated by the statute. The court also found that if a third party who lived and worked in Kansas was suing for labor or materials, the defendants would be subject to the court's jurisdiction but that the statute does not...