Scott and Vicki Nesbitt, acting pro se, appeal from the grant of summary judgment to Keith Wilde and Wilde Construction, Inc. collectively, “Wilde”, contending that the trial court erred by concluding that the Nesbitts cannot pursue claims arising from a construction dispute with Wilde because the Nesbitts are not the real parties in interest. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1 So viewed, the record shows that in July 2005, the Nesbitts entered into a contract with Wilde Construction, Inc., whereby Wilde Construction agreed to build a house for the Nesbitts by providing labor, materials, permitting, and work supervision. In return, the Nesbitts promised to pay Wilde Construction a weekly fee plus a percentage of the cost of construction. Construction began, but by January 2006, a dispute had arisen and Wilde Construction stopped its work on the house. It is undisputed that the Nesbitts later completed construction and obtained a certificate of occupancy without the involvement of Wilde Construction. In June 2006, the Nesbitts executed a security deed for the property in favor of Option One Mortgage Corporation, securing repayment of a note evidencing a $208,000 loan to the Nesbitts. The security deed contained a provision stating that certain causes of actions “in connection with or affecting the Property . . . are, at Lender’s option, assigned to Lender. . . .”2 In October 2006, the Nesbitts brought a cause of action against Wilde in the State Court of Douglas County, alleging claims for fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligent construction, violation of the Fair Business Practice Act, and unjust enrichment.
In June 2007, without resolution of the lawsuit against Wilde, the Nesbitts filed for bankruptcy protection in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northwestern District of Georgia, which action was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in June 2008. In September 2008, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay to allow the Lender3 to foreclose on the security deed, which the Lender did in January 2009, later selling the property to a third party.
