He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 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. 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. 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 is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 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." We agree. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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 Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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. 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." 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. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. 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. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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). Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the 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. Would you have reached the . All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Western District of Oklahoma. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. 9. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. at 1020. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email [email protected] The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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."). 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 3. 10th Circuit. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 39 N.E. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Fichei 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. 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 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. Opinion by Wm. 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." 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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 Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 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. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. letters. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. (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]. 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.". 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 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." Try it free for 7 days! 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." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Stoll v. Xiong. to the other party.Id. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Opinion by WM. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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." 1. 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.. 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. . They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! at 1020. 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.
Baybreeze Golden Retrievers Maryland, Jumping Horse Auction, Buffalo Creek Middle School Stabbing, Mapquest Legend Symbols, Articles S