Opinion ID: 1454494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Factors (6), (7), and (8): Acceptance of an offer of permanent employment in Kansas; admission to a licensed practicing profession in Kansas; and ownership of a home in Kansas.

Text: Peck provided no evidence of such acceptance or admission, nor did he provide evidence of ownership of a home in Kansas. He did state that he expected to inherit a portion of his grandfather's ranch. Peck did provide information that he had abandoned his residence in Texas. In his affidavit, he stated that his former bedroom at his father's residence in Texas has been converted to his half-sister's bedroom and that whenever he visited his father in Texas he slept on the couch. He stated he had no residence to return to in Texas. This information may have been characterized by the Residence Committee as not necessarily probative of his intent to permanently remain in Kansas. After finishing his education, he is not precluded from moving to another state or from returning to Texas and establishing his own residence. Concerning the secondary factors contained in K.A.R. 88-3-2(c), all of which have a transient characteristic, Peck reported that he had: (1) voted and registered to vote in Kansas; (2) registered his automobile in Kansas; (3) acquired a Kansas driver's license; and (4) paid last year's personal property tax in Kansas. A student's adherence to these factors is not sufficient to establish residency. The existence of these secondary factors in another state is to be regarded as evidence of retention of residence outside of Kansas. The absence of evidence of retention of residency outside of Kansas is not tantamount to establishing residency in Kansas. Individuals may sever visible ties with another state and fail to meet the criteria for residency for fee purposes in Kansas. An analysis of the facts show that, among all the primary factors listed in K.A.R. 88-3-2(b) as probative of resident status, Peck presented one piece of supportive evidence: that his grandfather in Wellington, Kansas, had provided somewhat less than half of his financial support. The remainder of Peck's evidence was secondary and, standing alone, not probative. We find that the Residence Committee's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Those factors supplied by Peck, which are relevant to the Regents' guidelines, support the Residence Committee's conclusion that he did not qualify as a resident of Kansas for fee purposes. Peck's evidence is not probative, standing alone, of an intent to remain in Kansas permanently. Peck opened his checking account in Wellington, Kansas, in 1986 while he was employed at the Ferguson Ranch immediately after graduating from high school. This act occurred when he was a nonresident (before he alleged he formed his alleged intent to become a permanent Kansas resident). The district court reasoned that the Residence Committee may not draw a negative inference from Peck's failure to present evidence on a factor. This reasoning impermissibly shifts the burden to the Residence Committee to prove nonresident status. Under K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1), Peck bears the burden to show that the agency's action is invalid. This he has failed to do. The probative evidence of Peck's intent to remain permanently in Kansas was the fact that a Kansas resident, his grandfather, was providing 42.5% of his financial support and that Peck used his grandfather's ranch in Cambridge as a permanent address. This probative evidence is offset by evidence which supports the conclusion that Peck came to Kansas solely to attend K-State. Peck stated that he came to Kansas because his significant other attended K-State and because K-State would accept his credits and not his grade point average. He did not reside in Kansas during the summer of 1988, the only time he was not attending K-State after his move to Kansas. Our responsibility is not to reweigh the evidence. The Residence Committee's finding is supported by substantial competent evidence. The Residence Committee's conclusion is not so wide of the mark as to be beyond the realm of fair debate. Peck has not demonstrated that the Residence Committee's action is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. He has not shown that the Residence Committee took the action of denying resident status without regard to the benefit or harm to all interested partiesPeck, K-State, and the Board of Regents. Peck asserts that the Residence Committee erroneously applied K.A.R. 88-3-2. He challenges the weight the Committee gave to the factors in K.A.R. 88-3-2(c), the nonprobative secondary list. Peck refers particularly to his declaration of intent to be a resident. These factors are not probative of the second element required to establish resident status, intent to remain in Kansas permanently following completion of education. See In re Residency Application of Bybee, 236 Kan. 443, 691 P.2d 37 (1984). Peck has not demonstrated that the Residence Committee erroneously applied the law or the regulations.