stoll v xiong

6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately 5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 10th Circuit. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Docket No. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. What was the outcome? An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone (i.e.,which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a preliminary version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. They received little or no education and could. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. . He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 1. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Supreme Court of Michigan. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 107,880. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. That judgment is AFFIRMED. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. 8. Western District of Oklahoma. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Discuss the court decision in this case. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 39 N.E. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. Opinion by WM. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 4 Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . Opinion by WM. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. ACCEPT. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Western District of Oklahoma They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. or roughly an additional $3,325.12 more per acre just from de-caked chicken litter sales than the $2,000 per acre purchase price stated on the first page of the contract. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would "have litter for sale, now it's not available." Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Stoll v. Xiong. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. September 17, 2010. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that no fair and honest person would propose, and no rational person would enter into, a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. 107,879. After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 134961. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. No. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Stoll v. Xiong. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 269501. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. We agree. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000, or roughly an additional $3,325.12 more per acre just from de-caked chicken litter sales than the $2,000 per acre purchase price stated on the first page of the contract. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. App. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. We agree. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 107879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. Citation is not available at this time. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor., He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available..

How Did Sidney Gottlieb Die, Riptide Water Park Jenkintown Pa, Txdot Dallas District Standards, Articles S