stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. to the other party.Id. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 2nd Circuit. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 8. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 10th Circuit. 1. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. 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. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 1. 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. 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 man would accept on the other. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. He alleged Buyers. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. (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]. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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 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). We agree. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Docket No. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. 2. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Stoll v. Xiong. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. View the full answer Step 2/2 1. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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 . 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. pronounced. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. We agree. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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." 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. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee accident), Expand root word by any number of ACCEPT. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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. 39 N.E. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. Supreme Court of Michigan. Opinion by WM. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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." Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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." 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. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Toker v. Westerman . 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. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. 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. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 3. 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). 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing.