We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. 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. You're all set! 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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 . 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." 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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." 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." September 17, 2010. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. They received little or no education and could. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. 7. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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." 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Stoll v. Xiong. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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." 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 134961. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." COA No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 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. 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. 5. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. 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. Melody Boeckman, No. Discuss the court decision in this case. Plaintiff appealed. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 2nd Circuit. because the facts are presented in documentary form. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Rationale? Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! ACCEPT. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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.8. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. We agree. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 6. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Western District of Oklahoma You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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."

Channel 5 News Dallas Anchors, Pilot Flying J Customer Service, 1970s Fatal Car Accidents Ohio, Howard University Building Abbreviations, Articles S