WEC, Inc. v. Patrin, 86-90946

• Decision Date: 22 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-90946,86-90946
• Citation: 756 P.2d 667,91 Or.App. 607
• Parties: WEC, INC., dba Western Engineering Consultants, an Oregon corporation, Appellant, v. Floyd PATRIN and Elsie Patrin, husband and wife, Respondents. ; CA A42842.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 667

756 P.2d 667

91 Or.App. 607

WEC, INC., dba Western Engineering Consultants, an Oregon corporation, Appellant, v. Floyd PATRIN and Elsie Patrin, husband and wife, Respondents.

No. 86-90946; CA A42842.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted on Record and Briefs Jan. 13, 1988.

Decided June 22, 1988.

Russell D. Bevans, Eugene, filed the brief for appellant.

Floyd Patrin and Elsie Patrin, Elk City, Idaho, filed the brief pro se for respondents.

Before WARDEN, P.J., and JOSEPH, C.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

VAN HOOMISSEN, Judge.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ORCP 21 A(2). We reverse.

We summarize the facts from the allegations in the complaint and affidavit of William Bublitz, principal shareholder of plaintiff. Plaintiff (WEC) is an Oregon corporation; Bublitz, is distantly related to defendant Elsie Patrin. Defendants own a number of mining claims in Idaho. By letter sent from Idaho to Oregon, in January, 1983, Elsie requested Bublitz to have WEC survey and remap the Patrins' mining claims. The Patrins needed new maps to comply with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirements for registration of their claims. Thereafter, the parties discussed the project over the telephone. In July, 1983, Bublitz wrote to remind the Patrins that WEC was willing to do the work. The plan to go ahead with the work was made in a telephone conversation. Bublitz again wrote, requesting necessary information to develop documents needed for the survey. In September, 1983, while the Patrins were visiting in Oregon, the parties entered an agreement, which provided that WEC would

"[d]etermine and perform the necessary work to survey, prepare maps with legal descriptions, monument (or reference mark trees) and have registered at the BLM in Boise, Idaho, all the claims of [the Patrins] * * *."

At the time of contracting, in Oregon, the Patrins paid WEC $2,500 to begin the work. WEC subcontracted with an Oregon surveyor, licensed in Idaho, for his crew to do the actual surveying. In late 1983, WEC sent to Idaho the surveying crew, its equipment and the engineering work product already developed from the information supplied by the Patrins. In January, 1984, the Patrins requested additional surveying, and WEC again sent the surveying crew to Idaho to do the work requested. Thereafter, the Patrins complained about the quality of the work and refused to pay the balance under the contract. In the summer of 1984, the Patrins visited Bublitz in Oregon. At that time, Bublitz felt that they had "ironed out their differences." However, the Patrins later raised new objections to the work and withheld payment.

WEC filed this action to enforce the contract in Lane County District Court. The Patrins moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. ORCP 21 A(2). The trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment dismissing the action.

Statutory provision for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents is found in ORCP 4. Subsections B through K enumerate circumstances which give rise to Oregon's "long arm" jurisdiction. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Carruth, 71 Or.App. 81, 84, 691 P.2d 127 (1984). If a specific section does not apply to the facts, we must determine whether due process permits the Oregon court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See ORCP 4 L; State ex rel Hydraulic Servocontrols v. Dale, 294 Or. 381, 384, 657 P.2d 211 (1982); Regal Manufacturing v. Louisana Glass, Inc., 83 Or.App. 463, 466, 731 P.2d 1066, rev. den. 303 Or. 454, 737 P.2d 1248 (1987).

The Patrins contend that their connection with Oregon is too tenuous to satisfy the requirements of ORCP 4 and due process. In their affidavits and in arguments to this court, they state that they did not expect that a contract to do survey work in Idaho, although signed in Oregon, would bring them within the jurisdiction of Oregon Courts. WEC argues that ORCP 4 E and ORCP 4 L give the trial court personal jurisdiction.

ORCP 4 provides, in relevant part:

"A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a party served in an action pursuant to Rule 7 under any of the following circumstances:

" * * * * *

"E In...