Defendant Hampton Island, LLC appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs1 on their claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. Hampton Island contends that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether there was adequate consideration for the contract and with respect to its defenses of duress, unclean hands and impossibility. Hampton Island further contends that the trial court lacked equitable jurisdiction to grant specific performance because the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law in the form of monetary damages. After reviewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and affirm. When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Where the movant is the plaintiff, she has the burden of presenting evidence to support her claim and the burden of piercing the defendant’s affirmative defenses. Footnotes omitted. Smith v. Gordon , 266 Ga. App. 814 1 598 SE2d 92 2004. See OCGA § 9-11-56 c. Guided by these principles, we turn to the record here. The dispute in this case centers on two parcels of land located within the Hampton Island Preserve in Liberty County the “Property”. The plaintiffs originally purchased the Property in 2005 from South Hampton Island Preservation Properties, LLC “South Hampton”. Although South Hampton agreed to make certain improvements to the Property following the sale to the plaintiffs, South Hampton failed to make the improvements. South Hampton then joined with three other business entities to form Hampton Island Founders, LLC “Founders”. Founders, in turn, joined another business entity to form defendant Hampton Island, LLC “Hampton Island”. Hampton Island was managed by a separate company owned and operated solely by Ron Leventhal, who had several decades of experience in real estate investment and development.
A dispute arose between the plaintiffs and Hampton Island as to whether Hampton Island could be held liable for South Hampton’s breach of its obligation to make improvements to the Property and for certain alleged violations of the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1701 et seq. The plaintiffs informed Leventhal that they planned to sue Hampton Island in federal court if the dispute could not be resolved.
