241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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." Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. We agree. 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. because the facts are presented in documentary form. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). "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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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.1971 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." 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. 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. 107,879. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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 . Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. 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." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Western District of Oklahoma Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. 107879. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. September 17, 2010. "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." ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. #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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. to the other party.Id. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Docket No. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 269501. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 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. Hetherington, Judge. We agree. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Would you have reached the . APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. at 1020. 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." As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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."). 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. You're all set! 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 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. 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 Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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 and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. 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. Advanced A.I. We agree. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Stoll v. Xiong. COA No. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. letters. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 10th Circuit. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 1. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. . 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. 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. pronounced. Discuss the court decision in this case. Facts. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 5. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 10th Circuit. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. "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." 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian.

Washington State Property Tax Exemption For 100% Disabled Veteran, Jennifer Rocha Obituary, Studio Apartments In Crescent City, Ca, Franklin Mint Coin Sets Of All Nations Value, Articles S