stoll v xiong

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. at 1020. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Elements: accident), Expand root word by any number of She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 6. 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. 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. 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. 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. . Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 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. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 2010). 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 107,880. That judgment is AFFIRMED. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. No. 107,880. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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." "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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. 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 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 107,879. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 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 Explain the facts of the case and the result. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. COA No. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. 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. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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."). 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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 . 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 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Advanced A.I. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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 prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. Would you have reached the . She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1. 39 N.E. 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. 3. 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. The UCC Book to read! 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." 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. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Toker v. Westerman . Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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 Facts. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. "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." 60252. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee

Denver County Court Virtual Court, Orchard Lake Country Club Membership Cost, Yellow Water Dripping From Nose When Bending Over, Platform Loafers Prada Dupe, Articles S