Krazy Kase: Kidnapper in Kansas sues his hostages, claims breach of contract

(CBS/AP) TOPEKA, Kan. - In the category of 'blaming the victim,' Jesse Dimmick looks to be the hands down winner.

In 2009, Dimmick took a couple hostage in their home near Topeka. Now, Dimmick is suing his hostages, claiming they broke an oral contract to hide him from police.

Aren't you glad you got out of bed today?

Dimmick, who hails from near Denver, is serving an 11-year sentence for bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009. At the time, he was already wanted for questioning in the beating death of a Colorado man, and a chase had begun in Geary County.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that after the Rowleys sued their kidnapper this year for $75,000 for intruding in their home and causing emotional stress, Dimmick turned around and countersued the Rowleys in Shawnee County District Court, for breach of contract.

The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the convict's claim.

Dimmick contends he told them he was being chased by someone, most likely the police, who wanted to kill him.

Here's how his lawsuit explains it:

"I, the defendant, asked the Rowleys to hide me because I feared for my life. I offered the Rowleys an unspecified amount of money which they agreed upon, therefore forging a legally binding oral contract," Dimmick said in his hand-written court documents. He wants $235,000, in part to pay for the hospital bills that resulted from him being shot by police when they arrested him.

Neighbors have said the Rowleys fed Dimmick snacks and watched movies with him until he fell asleep, and they were able to escape their home unharmed.

Dimmick was convicted in May 2010 of four felonies in the case, including two counts of kidnapping. He was sentenced to almost 11 years on those charges. He was later sent to a jail in Brighton, Colo., where he is being held on eight charges, including murder, in connection with the killing of Michael Curtis in September 2009. No plea has been entered in that case.

Robert E. Keeshan, an attorney for the Rowleys, filed a motion denying there was a contract, but said even if there was one, it would not have been binding.

"In order for parties to form a binding contract, there must be a meeting of the minds on all essential terms, including and most specifically, an agreement on the price," he wrote.

Keeshan said the contract also would have been invalid because the couple agreed to let Dimmick in their home only because they knew he had a knife and suspected he might have a gun.

Not exactly an agreement freely entered into by all parties.