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 The buyers sold the litter to third parties. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . You're all set! He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 2. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. 1. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 107880. 2nd Circuit. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. No. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." 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. at 1020. 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.". 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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. 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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 COA No. 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?) 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. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,879. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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, Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Facts. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 5. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. What was the outcome? Advanced A.I. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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." Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." September 17, 2010. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Melody Boeckman, No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong.