stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

They received little or no education and could. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 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." 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. 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. "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. 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Citation is not available at this time. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107,880. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 2nd Circuit. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 9. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. No. Advanced A.I. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. accident), Expand root word by any number of Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Opinion by WM. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. "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." 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. 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. 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." 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 1. 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.". Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Docket No. 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. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. 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. 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. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. No. 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. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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). 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.