450 P.3d 374
Kan. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Wheatland Contracting (subcontractor) agreed to perform plumbing on a KFC project in Johnson County; contract named Sedgwick County (Eighteenth Judicial District) as exclusive forum.
- Wheatland filed a mechanic's lien in Johnson County; Jaco (contractor) posted a bond, the lien was discharged, and Wheatland proceeded to claim against the bond.
- Wheatland sued in Johnson County for breach, bond claim, violations of the Kansas Fairness in Private Construction Contract Act, and quantum meruit.
- Jaco moved to dismiss or transfer venue to Sedgwick County relying on the contract’s forum-selection clause; the district court denied the motion based on K.S.A. 16-1806.
- The appellate court reviewed the Act, held it unambiguous, and found K.S.A. 16-1806 prescribes venue in the county where the real property is located and precludes contractual waiver of that venue.
- Court affirmed denial of transfer: the contract’s Sedgwick-only venue clause was unenforceable under the Act.
Issues:
| Issue | Wheatland's Argument | Jaco's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 16-1806 preempts a contract forum-selection clause and requires venue in the county where the property is located | The Act prescribes nonwaivable rights/duties including statutory venue; actions under the Act must be brought in the county where the real property is located | The venue provision is procedural and waivable; parties agreed to Sedgwick venue, so contract should govern | K.S.A. 16-1806 is unambiguous; venue is a right/duty under the Act and cannot be waived by contract; contract clause unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405 (Kan. 2016) (statutory interpretation: plain, unambiguous statutes control and legislative history unnecessary)
- Bowen Eng'g Corp. v. Pacific Indem. Co., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (D. Kan. 2015) (federal court applied federal procedural law to forum-selection clause in diversity case)
- Herr Indus., Inc. v. CTI Sys., SA, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Kan. 2015) (federal court enforced forum-selection clause under federal law; noted Act did not bar clause under federal analysis)