*1 obligated request the trial defend appeal. on Marriage

court’s decision In re Castle, (Iowa App. 312 N.W.2d 1981). remand to the trial court for the taking

purpose of additional evidence and pursuant

entering an to the uniform order support guidelines.

child We affirm the order in all respects except

district court’s support

the child award and tax court costs

to Scott. IN PART

AFFIRMED AND REMAND-

ED. IOWA, HALF

ROBERT OF

INC., Appellant,

CITIZENS BANK OF

NEWBURG, Appellee.

No. 89-1105. Appeals

Court of of Iowa.

Jan. *2 by began

hired the defendant and work in Missouri.

Subsequently dispute concerning arose the fee which the defendant allegedly bank owed Robert Half. Robert Half filed this against the lawsuit bank to recover the fee allegedly The filed due. bank a motion to personal dismiss jurisdiction; for want of the bank asserted it had insufficient mini- mum contacts with the state of Iowa to jurisdiction confer on the Iowa court. Both parties regarding submitted affidavits to dismiss. motion The motion came on for hearing Judge Ray- before Honorable mond Hanrahan. No other evidence be- parties’ presented affidavits sides hearing, transcript at this and no was made arguments. The of counsels’ district court granted the defendant’s motion and dis- missed the suit. appealed

Plaintiff has from the dis ruling. trict court’s It if contends even the Iowa, bank had no other contacts with its telephone conversation with Robert Half’s concerning Des Moines office the matter here, alleged agreement involved and its Gamble, Riepe, during phone pay D. Brian Scieszinski of call to Robert Half’s Moines, fee, Webster, Green, give for Davis & Des were sufficient to the Iowa court personal jurisdiction over appellant. the bank for purpose of this lawsuit. Duncan, Jones, Riley Gaffney R. Todd of Moines, Finley, appellee. Des resolving questions jurisdictional nonresidents, regarding the courts are to OXBERGER, C.J., Considered and first, employ two-prong test: a stat does SACKETT, JJ. DONIELSON jurisdiction assumption ute authorize defendant, second, assump would DONIELSON, Judge. jurisdiction tion of offend constitutional Iowa, Plaintiff, Inc., Half an process Robert due law? Martin Ju-Li (Iowa 1983). corporation principal place its of Corp., N.W.2d operates business Des Moines. an of Iowa autho Section 617.3 of the Code employment agency. The personal jurisdiction defendant is rizes over nonresi organized under the laws of into a con Missouri bank dent defendant who entered part performed in whole or in Missouri. tract “to be Defendant’s party either Iowa....” banking Plaintiff advertised in a newslet- jurisdic challenge motion dismiss did seeking to ter that one of its clients was statute, upon long our arm tion based employment move in the make any effect we consider claim to this will not An officer of the business. defendant appeal. on responded by bank this ad and tele- saw to dismiss did chal- phoning Half’s Des Moines office. Defendant’s motion Robert call, sufficient minimum contacts phone lenge Robert Half’s whether As result of this process require- satisfy the due to Missouri for an interview existed to traveled of our federal constitution. with the defendant bank. The client was ments principles used a due be state such it should reason- analysis anticipate are well established. ably being haled into court there. Id. at S.Ct. examine the assertion of in whether [W]e

personam jurisdiction over nonresi- *3 requirement dent defendant satisfies the activity of unilateral one who play justice. of fair and substantial relationship claims some with a nonresident ... The “minimum contacts” test is not satisfy requirement defendant cannot the susceptible application; of mechanical of forum contact with a state. is “[I]t rather, the of each facts case must be in essential each case that there be some weighed requi- to determine whether the act which the defendant purposefully site “affiliating circumstances” are avails of privilege conducting itself the of present. recognize We that this determi- state, within forum activities the thus in is in which nation one few answers will voking protections the benefits and of its be written “in black and white. The* 474-75, 2183, laws. Id. at 105 S.Ct. at 85 greys are among dominant and even 542, quoting L.Ed.2d at Hanson v. Denck the them shades innumerable.” la, 235, 253, 1228, 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. 1239- in apply light the above standard of 40, 1283, (1958). 2 L.Ed.2d 1298 “pur This ..., factors the being five first three poseful requirement availment” ensures a important: most jurisdic defendant will not be haled into a (1) contacts; quantity the of the solely random, tion as a of result fortui (2) the quality nature and of the con- tous, 475, or attenuated contacts. Id. at tacts; 2183, 105 S.Ct. at 85 L.Ed.2d at 542. (3) the source connection of the reviewing a district court’s rul contacts; cause of action with those challenge on a in personam juris to its (4) state; of interest the forum diction, we accept allegations of the petition as true. Omaha Storage Cold (5) parties. the convenience of the Terminals, 417 at N.W.2d 255. Plaintiff Storage Omaha Cold Terminals v. Cun requisite the burden to sustain the 254, (Iowa ningham, 417 App. N.W.2d 255 jurisdiction, prima but a when facie case is 1987), quoting Scholl, Larsen v. 296 established, defendant has the burden to 785, (Iowa 1980). N.W.2d 788 produce evidence to rebut or overcome it. The due clause of the Id. A distinction needs to be made be operates fourteenth amendment to limit the allegations petition tween a go which to power personam of a state to assert in of a allegations merits claim and other jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. petition. of a may The latter be contradict Helicopteros De Nacionales Colombia v. affidavits, testimony ed and other evi Hall, 413-14, 408, 1868, 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. dence; the former are taken as true for 1872, 404, (1984). pro 410 special Martin, appearance purposes. liberty tects an in individual’s interest not Although special appear N.W.2d at 873. subject being binding judgment to the of a replaced by ances in Iowa been have an which he or with she has no mean motions, preanswer swers ties, ingful contacts, or Burger relations. 66, R.Civ.P. we principles assume same King Corp. Rudzewicz, v. 471 U.S. apply respect with to treatment alle 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed.2d gations petition. in the The “constitutional touch determining jurisdiction alleged stone” in Plaintiff it had a wheth contract er purposefully a defendant has with defendant to established conduct search for a state, person position minimum contacts in a forum fill in and the to defendant’s plaintiff’s defendant’s conduct and connection a bank.1 A contract with an out- correctly correctly recognized *4 in the bank- employment to move make pay plaintiff place- dant contracted to plaintiff called fee, Defendant business. find con- ment we cannot defendant’s plaintiff arrange an interview to and asked in case such it be duct this was could plaintiffs meet could which defendant said to have created “substantial connec- in client, Metge, the Mis- at bank Steve with tion” the forum state. Asahi Metal it then Defendant’s affidavit claims Court, souri. Industry v. Superior 480 U.S. Co. in its interest express 109, to 102, 1026, 1031, called 107 S.Ct. inquire about fee

hiring Metge Mr. and to 92, 102 arrangements. on Burger King Plaintiff’s reliance issue, misplaced. is That jurisdiction Corp. case involved ruling

In on a twenty to findings of have the contract which was endure the court fact trial continuing It years. specifically envisioned 353 N.W.2d jury Tung, of a verdict. force wide-reaching de- implicit and contacts between the from the district at 870. is Burger King it de fendant and state. ruling that found defendant’s court’s 480, 2186, 85 Corp., 471 105 S.Ct. jurisdictional facts in this U.S. scription the also this case is more ver L.Ed.2d at 545. We note to have accurate case been in en- placed in a a situation which the defendant an ad not sion of events. Plaintiff and activi- gaged systematic in “continuous banking advertising avail newsletter could sub- ties” within Iowa and thus be ability of of its clients for one jected jurisdiction to on contract actions ad intended employment. Plaintiff’s business, Davenport activities. respond unrelated to those to and defendant solicit 435. Foundry, 314 N.W.2d at phone plaintiff’s call business Machine & ed to in Iowa. is affirmed. court's decision The district goods Iowa seller of general, an AFFIRMED. ordinarily foreign buyer subject to a cannot J., SACKETT, buyer suit in Iowa courts. Dav to concurs. Adolph enport Foundry v. Machine OXBERGER, C.J., dissents. Co., 432, (Iowa 433 314 N.W.2d Coors OXBERGER, (dissenting). Judge Chief 1981). recognized a dis Our courts have I would find “passive” respectfully I dissent. between “active” tinction Rule 56.2 Al-Jon, jurisdiction. courts have v. Street Iowa purchasers. Inc. Garden to be 709, Rules of Civil Procedure is Metal, 714. An the Iowa 301 N.W.2d Iron & due the widest interpreted to reach purchaser aggressively solicits active constitution. of the federal participates parameters business transaction Doubletree, 440 N.W.2d v. way production subject Hager of the some 1989). (Iowa simply places passive purchaser A goods. op- as provision of services satisfy due which involve to constitutional would have existed However, case process requirements goods. the facts this posed in this case. used, analysis regardless of the such that "active/passive” recognized the This court simply to sus- do not exist contacts minimum apply employ- purchaser analysis may in an not jurisdiction by district court. tain context, Tung, N.W.2d at ment apply similarly may squarely to contracts it

The test under International Shoe Co. U.S. Washington, S.Ct. (1940) 90 L.Ed. “mini-

mum contacts.” an employ-

The contract in this case is placement

ment contract. It is not an em-

ployment purpose The sole contract. corpora- is for

the contract at bar the Iowa place employer

tion to the Missouri in con- prospective employee

tact with the who corporation. the Iowa

was a company by

defendant contacted the Iowa

phone at its Iowa address.

I hold the minimum contact would re-

quirement was met in this case and that jurisdiction court has hear this

dispute. Larry Handley Block, Handley J.

Ankeny, appellant. for Samek, Moines, K. appel- Kolleen Des for lee. SCHLEGEL, P.J.,

Considered HABHAB, HAYDEN and JJ. SCHLEGEL, Presiding Judge. THORNTON, Appellee, Marvin Ankeny The defendant State Bank (Bank) appeals ruling of the district court holding longer that was no BANK, Appellant. ANKENY STATE originally liable to Bank aon note by plaintiff, No. 89-300. grounds executed on the of no new consideration. affirm trial Appeals Court of of Iowa. court. Jan. 1990. In October Marvin Thornton exe- cosigner

cuted a note as a favor Ankeny State Bank on behalf of Patricia $3,326.79 Newville in the amount of per interest of annum. note 15% was payable due and on or before November pay- 1985. On date Thornton no made ment, did nor Newville. May 1986 an agreement extension was

signed by both Thornton and Newville re- ducing extending the interest rate and payment time for June until 1986. This passed any payments deadline without be- principal. on the September made On agreement another extension signed Newville, but Thornton. The debt was extended to October payoff When the October date was not met, the Bank set a notice of default notes Plaintiff the district court district court had the alle- accepting allegation true, erred its gation in the exist- as insufficient minimum contacts However, ence of contract as true. even if the automatically delivery goods. an of the order and awaits alone party cannot of-state contacts sufficient minimum Id. establish Burger King, home forum. plaintiffs The situation this case is more analo- 105 S.Ct. at U.S. gous passive purchaser.2 544-45; Tung American L.Ed.2d specific it Plaintiff had whom Caribbean, 353 N.W.2d Univ. of potential sought employment. It solicited (Iowa App.1984). employers by placing in a ad claimed Defendant’s affidavit responded and did newsletter. .Defendant in a bank news placed an advertisement nothing more than ask meet the client it a client who wished stating had magazine plaintiff's ad. Even if described defen-