Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. right of "armed robbery. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Discuss the court decision in this case. September 17, 2010. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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 number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts at 1020. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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, 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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 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. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. 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. Toker v. Westerman . She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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 trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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.". Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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 planned to sell or trade the litter. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. ACCEPT. 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. 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. 107,880. 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." 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 1. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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." 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 1. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract 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. 107,880. 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 Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. . 7. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 4. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 1. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Advanced A.I. 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. Chong Lor Xiong. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. "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. 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 That judgment is AFFIRMED. 1. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 107,880. 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. 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." An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 9. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 1. 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. 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. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He alleged Buyers. Elements: 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 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.
Richard Erickson Wendie Malick, Grandville High School Staff Directory, He Asked Me To Be His Girlfriend Over Text, Lana Nelson Bio, Accident On Hwy 29 Wisconsin Yesterday, Articles S