WCK v. Ritchie Corp.
Decision Date | 22 April 2010 |
Docket Number | 812.,No. 101,101 |
Citation | 228 P.3d 429 |
Parties | WASTE CONNECTIONS OF KANSAS, INC., Appellant, v. RITCHIE CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Steven D. Gough and Donald N. Peterson, II, of Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson, LLC, of Wichita, for the appellant.
Ken M. Peterson and Will B. Wohlford, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, of Wichita, for the appellee.
Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., PIERRON, J., and BUKATY, S.J.
Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. (WCK), appeals a summary judgment ruling in favor of Ritchie Corporation (Ritchie) concerning the amount of the purchase price owed when Waste Connections exercised its right of first refusal for the purchase of a waste transfer station.
As both parties requested summary judgment, the facts are for the most part established and uncontradicted. Rather, both parties interpret the facts in favor of their respective positions.
WCK is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Kansas. WCK is the successor in interest to BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (BFI). Ritchie is a Kansas corporation based in Wichita. Ritchie is the owner of real estate in Sedgwick County that contains a landfill and also a waste transfer station. The first critical event in this case was the sale of the transfer station from Ritchie to BFI.
On December 29, 1998, Ritchie and BFI entered into a real estate contract for the sale of the 16.8 acres containing the transfer station. In conjunction with the real estate contract, the parties entered into an escrow agreement stating that BFI had the right to operate a nonhazardous solid waste transfer station for 35 years. As compensation for the sale, the escrow agreement provided that BFI would make quarterly payments to Ritchie of 35 cents per ton of nonhazardous solid waste processed at the transfer station. Additionally, Ritchie retained a reversionary interest in the transfer station by virtue of the fact that upon expiration of the escrow agreement, the escrow agent was required to record the deed back in Ritchie's name. The critical piece of the escrow agreement is the right of first refusal given to BFI. It provides in full:
The escrow agreement also provided for the payment of attorney fees to the prevailing party in case of a dispute over the agreement.
The escrow agreement was amended in 2001 to reflect an increase in the amount of the per-tonnage quarterly payment from 35 cents to 52 cents and to also install a rate increase of 7.5% every 5 years. In consideration for the rate increase, Ritchie agreed not to file a petition for annexation or consent to annexation by the city of Wichita with respect to the landfill property contiguous, in part, to the transfer station. Ritchie also agreed to use its best efforts to maintain use of the adjacent property separating the transfer station and the landfill as "Land Devoted to Agricultural Use."
The next critical event in this case occurred on June 22, 2007, when Ritchie entered into an asset purchase agreement with Cornejo & Sons, Inc. (Cornejo), for purchase of the landfill and also purchase of Ritchie's rights and obligations in the transfer station as outlined in the escrow agreement. In 2007, Cornejo approached Ritchie about purchasing the landfill. However, Ritchie wanted a package deal for sale of both the transfer station and the landfill at a cost of $5.5 million ($3.5 million for the landfill and $2 million for the transfer station). Cornejo countered that it was only interested in the landfill and would pay $3.5 million for the landfill. For the package deal, Cornejo counteroffered $4.95 million.
On the one hand, Ritchie independently estimated the value of the interest in the transfer station based on a discounted cash flow analysis was $2 million. On the other hand, Cornejo estimated the value of the interest in the transfer station was $1.45 million. Tom Ritchie testified in his deposition as follows:
The parties agreed on a price for the package deal of $4.95 million. Cornejo testified that it did not care how the $4.95 million was allocated for the purchase as long as Cornejo could buy the landfill for $3.5 million. Tom Ritchie also testified that it was Ritchie's idea to allocate $2 million of the package deal to the transfer station. Ritchie and Cornejo came to an agreement as provided in the asset purchase agreement. The critical language in the asset purchase agreement with regard to WCK's right of first refusal in the escrow agreement was obviously the purchase price of the transfer station. Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement, the price was as follows:
By letter dated June 27, 2007, Ritchie notified WCK of Cornejo's offer to purchase the transfer station interest and attached a copy of the asset purchase agreement. The letter stated:
On August 2, 2007, Robert Epstein, WCK's attorney, had a phone conversation with Terry Pilgreen, Ritchie's attorney, and advised him that WCK had a dispute over the value of the transfer station and that WCK thought the pricing on the transfer station should be $1.45 million, not $2 million. Epstein followed up his phone conversation with Pilgreen with the following letter:
Additional correspondence and communications occurred between Ritchie and WCK, including some correspondence with Cornejo, concerning the right of first refusal and the appropriate price. By letter dated September 13, 2007, WCK again informed Ritchie that it disputed the price owed under the right of first refusal and that the appropriate price was $1.45 million, not $2 million. In conjunction with the September 13 letter, WCK delivered a certified check to the escrow agent in the amount of $2 million to "acquire all of Ritchie's interest in the escrow agreement and the assumption of Ritchie's obligations under the escrow agreement." The September 13 letter also stated:
"Waste Connections' delivery of this check is subject to its express reservation of its rights to determine the proper price payable for its exercise of the Right of First Refusal is $1,450,000.00, rather than $2,000,000.00 as claimed by Ritchie, which reservation includes all remedies that are available upon such a determination."
On September 28, 2007, the parties held a closing for the escrow agreement where Ritchie's rights and interest in the transfer station were transferred to WCK in exchange for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Waste Connections of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp.
...(Waste Connections), and ordered remand to the district court for determination of attorney fees. Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. Ritchie Corp., 43 Kan.App.2d 655, 228 P.3d 429 (2010). We granted Ritchie's petition for review. Ritchie now argues that the Court of Appeals erred by disco......
-
In re QuVis, Inc., Case No. 09-10706 (Bankr. Kan. 6/1/2010)
...listed on the filed UCC-1 is perfected. 26. 235 Kan. 117, 122, 679 P.2d 1152 (1984). 27. Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. Ritchie Corp., ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 228 P.3d 429, 438 (2010); Simon v. National Farmers Organization, Inc., 250 Kan. 676, 680 (829 P.2d 884 (1992) 28. See Anderson ......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kan. CVS Pharmacy, LLC
...a few points. Kansas courts imply a duty of good faith and fair dealing in every contract. Waste Connections of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp., 43 Kan. App. 2d 655, 669-70, 228 P.3d 429 (2010). This means that parties should not intentionally or purposely do anything to prevent the other party......
-
Waste Connections of Kan., Inc. v. Ritchie Corp.
...and then it remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of attorney fees. Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. Ritchie Corp., 43 Kan.App.2d 655, 670, 228 P.3d 429 (2010).The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both courts. It held that neither party was entitled to summa......