stoll v xiong

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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 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." We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Yes. Stoll v. Xiong. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 1. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. COA No. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. (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]. Melody Boeckman, No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. Citation is not available at this time. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Rationale? Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 134961. 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. Opinion by WM. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. We agree. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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 make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 1. 10th Circuit. Try it free for 7 days! He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. "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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,879, as an interpreter. "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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Western District of Oklahoma. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in We agree. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis pronounced. Hetherington, Judge. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. 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. 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. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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.. 3. 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." Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. He alleged Buyers. 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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, No. 5. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Toker v. Westerman . Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Doccol - -SCI Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. 107,880. 8. 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 v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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."). All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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 contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). 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." Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary "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." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 6. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. 1. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 39 N.E. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. 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.

Clovis Cemetery Plots For Sale, Las Vegas Coroner Unidentified, Walker With Wheels And Brakes, Articles S