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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. No. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." App. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Western District of Oklahoma Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 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. 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 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, For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. E-Commerce 1. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 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. 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 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Hetherington, Judge. 1. 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, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." "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. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. accident), Expand root word by any number of Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Stoll v. Xiong. No. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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." 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 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Would you have reached the . 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., 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. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 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. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 107,879, as an interpreter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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.
Lane Stadium North End Zone Expansion, Articles S