The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. September 17, 2010. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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. 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. No. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. An 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 person would accept on the other. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Toker v. Westerman . Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 1. 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. 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 7. No. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. . eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Opinion by WM. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 1. 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. United States District Courts. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. at 1020. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The UCC Book to read! The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a-or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 1. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Hetherington, Judge. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Elements: The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 1. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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 . 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. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 107,880. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Stoll v. Xiong. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. 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. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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.". Rationale? #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 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. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. 107,879, 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." to the other party.Id. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. September 17, 2010. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real estate located in 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." 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. They received little or no education and could. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. We agree. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. because the facts are presented in documentary form. What was the outcome? A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." 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.". 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. pronounced. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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?) 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 1. View the full answer Step 2/2 The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. 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. Facts. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 134961. 107,880. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (60) acre parcel of real estate located in 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.. Want more details on this case? 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 107,879, 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Would you have reached the . Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. E-Commerce 1. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. ACCEPT. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 20 Buyers argue 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, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Discuss the court decision in this case. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Advanced A.I. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 3. 60252. 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. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a - or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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, DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 107880. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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.
Genesis 3:19 Explained, Alaska Mosquito Execution, Articles S