Monica Parks sued Thompson Builders, Inc. for the return of her earnest money after she was unable to obtain financing to close on a home constructed by Thompson Builders.1 The case proceeded to a jury trial, but at the close of the evidence, the trial court granted Thompson Builders’s motion for directed verdict. The court ruled that the contract between the parties was unenforceable and that Parks was estopped from receiving the return of her earnest money because she failed to exercise due diligence to obtain financing. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case for a new trial. A directed verdict is proper only if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict. OCGA § 9-11-50 a. In determining whether any conflict in the evidence exists, the court must construe the evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion for directed verdict. The standard used to review the grant or denial of a directed verdict is the any evidence test. Citation omitted. RHL Properties v. Neese , 293 Ga. App. 838 668 SE2d 828 2008.
So viewed, the evidence reveals that Parks, a Florida resident, came to Georgia in November 2005, with the intention of looking for a home so she could move to Georgia with a childhood friend. Parks saw a model home in a subdivision being constructed by Thompson Builders and liked it. She met with Ginger Hudgins, secretary of Thompson Builders and mother of Keith Thompson, owner of Thompson Builders, and was told that she should select a lot and pay a $1,000 deposit, which Parks did. Parks returned the next day and signed a purchase contract, which reflected a purchase price of $415,900 and stated that Parks was to obtain a 30-year loan in an amount “TBD” to be determined at an interest rate “TBD.” Parks did not read the contract before signing it. It is undisputed that Parks paid a total of $16,000 in earnest money in four checks: November 12, 2005, $1,000; November 16, 2005, $5,000; November 21, 2005, $2,500, and February 19, 2006, $7,500.
