Mike's Harder Lemonade Calories 12 Oz, Is Brandt Clarke Related To Bobby Clarke, High Farms Golden Retrievers, Nihonga Painting Supplies, Articles S

Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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! 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 2. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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.". We agree. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. No. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Yes. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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, 107879. 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. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 10th Circuit. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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 agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is, adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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?) 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." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 9. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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." View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 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. 134961. Advanced A.I. accident), Expand root word by any number of 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Rationale? 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."). 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. (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]. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 2010). The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Xiong. at 1020. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to because the facts are presented in documentary form. Toker v. Westerman . Want more details on this case? Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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 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." Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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.". 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. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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." Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page.