Kidnapper Sues His Hostages For $235,000 To Cover Emotional Stress And Hospital Bills After He Was Shot By Police

A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from authorities is suing them, claiming they broke an oral contract made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police.

The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Jesse Dimmick, of suburban Denver, is serving an 11-year sentence after bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009.

He was wanted for questioning in the beating death of a Colorado man and a chase had begun in Geary County, the Associated Press reports.

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

In his hand-written court documents, Dimmick said: '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.'

He wants $235,000 in total, including $160,000 for his hospital bills after he was shot in the back by police and an additional $75,000 for emotional stress.

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

Tucked away: The Rowleys' house outside Topeka in Kansas where the couple were held hostage

Dimmick was convicted in May 2010 of four felonies, including two counts of kidnapping.

He was sentenced to 10 years and 11 months on those charges.

He was later sent to a jail in Brighton, Colorado, where he is being held on eight charges, including murder, in connection with the killing of Michael Curtis in September 2009.

A preliminary hearing originally scheduled for December 6 has been rescheduled for April 12.

No plea has been entered in the case.

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

'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.

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