Perry Golf Course Dev. LLC v. Housing Auth. of the City of Atlanta

The plaintiff alleged part performance sufficient to raise a triable issue to withstand the defendants' motion for judgment on pleadings, since the plaintiff alleged that it incurred approximately $2M in golf-related costs and 6K man-hours during a seven year period in the proposed redevelopment of a public housing facility managed by the city housing authority, before the developers eliminated the golf course feature of the redevelopment plan.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case arises out of the proposed redevelopment of Perry Homes, a public housing facility managed by the Atlanta Housing Authority “AHA”. In order to bid on the project, Perry Golf Course Development, LLC and two other companies, Brock Built, LLC and Columbia Residential, LLC, formed a limited liability company, Perry Homes Redevelopment, LLC “PHR”. PHR and AHA eventually entered into a Revitalization Agreement for the property. After various disputes, Brock Built and Columbia assumed control of PHR and entered into a Master Plan Revision with AHA that eliminated the golf course feature of the redevelopment plan, to the alleged detriment of Perry Golf. Perry Golf brought an action against AHA, Brock Built, and Columbia for specific performance, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, breach of contract, quantum meruit, tortious interference, punitive damages, and attorney fees, and filed a notice of lis pendens against the property. Brock Built counterclaimed against Perry Golf and its controlling member, Chip Drury, and brought a third party claim against Drury and various entities in which he had an interest. The trial court dismissed all claims among the parties. Perry Golf and Brock Built appeal and, for reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part. On appeal from a grant of judgment on the pleadings, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s order.1 We must determine “whether the undisputed facts appearing from the pleadings entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. All well-pleaded material allegations by the nonmovant are taken as true, and all denials by the movant are taken as false. But the trial court need not adopt a party’s legal conclusions based on these facts.”2 Accordingly, a motion for judgment on the pleadings “should be granted only where the pleadings disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts.”3

A08A1231

Perry Golf Course Dev. LLC v. Housing Auth. of the City of Atlanta

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report