stoll v xiong

Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. 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. 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. 107,880. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 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." We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 134961. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Elements: 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. 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." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. You're all set! He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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." Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." No. 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." 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. Opinion by WM. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion 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, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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." Stoll v. Xiong. Yes. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. . Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 60252. 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. to the other party.Id. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. The UCC Book to read! 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." Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 107,879, as an interpreter. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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. "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. 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 trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor.