"The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. United States District Courts. No. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Toker v. Westerman . He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. "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. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. That judgment is AFFIRMED. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. . search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in letters. 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. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. They received little or no education and could. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Hetherington, Judge. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 107, 879, as an interpreter. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 107,880. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. No. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. ACCEPT. Try it free for 7 days! Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 60252. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 107,880. 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. 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 alleged Buyers. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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 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. 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. 269501. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. . "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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. 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 appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. at 1020. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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,
She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 1. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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." 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 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. 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. Please check back later. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 7. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. What was the outcome? 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. pronounced. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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.
Sdhc Utility Allowance,
Was Isaiah Written Before Daniel,
Articles S