Beverly Enterprises-Texas, Inc. v. Devine Convalescent Care Center
2012 OK CIV APP 16
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2012Background
- Beverly Enterprises sued Devine Convalescent Care Center and Samuel Jewell in Murray County, Oklahoma for lease/guarantee claims arising from a July 2005 five-year lease for a Texas nursing home.
- The lease stated Devine’s principal place of business as Sulphur, Oklahoma and listed Jewell’s Sulphur address, with Jewell residing in Oklahoma.
- Defendants contested Oklahoma personal jurisdiction and venue, moving to dismiss; the district court granted the motion and transferred to Medina County, Texas.
- Beverly filed the petition in May 2009 seeking $27,820.80 under the lease and guarantee; Jewell signed the lease as operator/president and the standby guarantee as guarantor.
- The court applied the two-step minimum contacts test; Devine lacked minimum contacts with Oklahoma, but Jewell had sufficient contacts to support Oklahoma jurisdiction.
- The forum-selection clause in the guarantee was found not to mandate exclusive Texas jurisdiction; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma may exercise in personam jurisdiction over Devine. | Beverly asserts minimum contacts due to Oklahoma residency of Jewell and lease references. | Devine contends it has no principal place of business in Oklahoma and lacks Oklahoma contacts. | Oklahoma lacks in personam jurisdiction over Devine. |
| Whether Oklahoma is a proper venue for the suit against Devine and Jewell. | Venue is proper in Murray County due to related contacts and contract. | Venue should be in Texas per forum considerations and lack of Oklahoma contacts. | Venue improper in Murray County for Devine; transfer appropriate. |
| Whether Oklahoma may exercise jurisdiction over Jewell individually. | Jewell’s Oklahoma residency and lease signing establish sufficient contacts. | Although resident, the forum-selection/lease terms restricts to Texas; jurisdiction questionable. | Oklahoma may exercise jurisdiction over Jewell individually. |
| Whether the forum-selection clause in the guarantee is mandatory and exclusive. | Clause references Texas contract and Texas jurisdiction; may require Texas forum. | Clause is not clear enough to make Texas the exclusive forum; wears as a permissive element. | Forum-selection clause not mandatory/exclusive; Oklahoma can exercise jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conoco, Inc. v. Agrico Chem. Co., 115 P.3d 829 (2004 OK 83) (two-step minimum contacts and due-process framework)
- Willbros USA, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 220 P.3d 1166 (2009 OK CIV APP 90) (de novo review of jurisdiction; minimum contacts analysis)
- Danne v. Texaco Exploration & Prod. Inc., 883 P.2d 210 (1994 OK CIV APP 138) (de novo standard for contested questions of law)
- Eads v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins., 785 P.2d 328 (1989 OK CIV APP 19) (forum-selection clauses and jurisdiction interplay)
- Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boiler & Mech., Inc., 106 F.3d 318 (10th Cir. 1997) (permissive vs mandatory forum-selection analysis)