The City of Dawsonville filed this lawsuit seeking specific performance of an agreement requiring Gold Creek SL, LLC to convey land and easement rights to the City for development of a waste water treatment facility. Gold Creek filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the City filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied Gold Creek’s motion and granted the City’s motion. Gold Creek appeals, contending that the agreement was unenforceable since it failed to sufficiently identify the quantity and location of the property to be conveyed so as to satisfy the statute of frauds, and since the provision to landscape the property “in an aesthetically pleasing manner” lacked certainty. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s decision denying Gold Creek’s motion to dismiss. We reverse the decision granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, since the trial court failed to rule upon Gold Creek’s claim regarding the landscape provision, we remand the case for a ruling as to that claim. The evidence shows that the City of Dawsonville entered into an agreement with Gold Creek SL, LLC “Gold Creek” as well as Gold Creek Resort Associates, LLC and Gold Creek Land Associates, LLC collectively “Resort/Land” for the development, construction, and operation of a waste water treatment plant, spray fields, and out storage on the Gold Creek and Resort/Land property. The agreement required Gold Creek and Resort/Land to convey certain tracts of land to the City, including a lake designated as “Swan Lake” located on the golf course property to be used for holding treated water that would be sprayed onto the golf course; a tract for a waste water lift station; and a five-acre tract of land referred to as the “Site” to be used to construct the waste water treatment plant. The agreement also required Gold Creek and Resort/Land to provide easements to the property as necessary to carry out its purposes.
The agreement was signed, notarized, and recorded in the Dawson County real estate records. The agreement provided that it was to be binding upon the executing parties as well as their successors and assigns. The property transfers were to occur within sixty days of the City’s issuance of written notice that it was ready to proceed with the funding, permitting, and construction of the waste water treatment facility. When the City provided its written notice, however, Gold Creek failed to execute warranty deeds to effect the property transfers. Gold Creek’s representative requested a ninety-day extension of time for compliance with the agreement’s terms, which the City granted. When the extended deadline passed and there had been no property transfers from Gold Creek, the City issued a demand letter seeking compliance with the agreement.
