This appeal arises from an action that Barbara Ann Carroll filed against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia the “Board” for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and attorney fees based upon the Board’s failure to compensate her for unused annual leave upon her retirement. The trial court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims, concluding that they were barred by sovereign immunity. The trial court subsequently granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, concluding that under the clear and unambiguous terms of a settlement agreement that Carroll entered into with the Board providing for her early retirement, Carroll was not entitled to compensation for the unused annual leave and Carroll could not establish that the parties modified their agreement. Carroll argues on appeal that the settlement agreement is ambiguous regarding her right to compensation for unused annual leave and genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the parties modified the agreement. She also challenges the dismissal of her unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims. We discern no error and affirm.
“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We apply a de novo standard of appellate review and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Footnote and punctuation omitted. Community Marketplace Properties, LLC v. SunTrust Bank, 303 Ga. App. 403, 404 693 SE2d 602 2010. So viewed, the record shows that Carroll served as a professor in the Marketing Department of the Terry College of Business “TCB” at the University of Georgia “UGA” from 1986 until her retirement on September 1, 2010. In August 2007, Carroll approached Robert Sumichrast, the Dean of TCB, about entering into an agreement providing for her early retirement. She testified that she was interested in retiring because “it had been a problematic time of employment, particularly under the former department head . . ., and there were lots of issues.” Carroll’s objectives in pursuing an early retirement agreement were to secure a significant salary increase and to ensure that the increase was factored into her pension so that she could afford to retire at age 62.
