In a dispute over an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of real estate, Charles Ayer seller appeals from the grant of an interlocutory injunction to Norfolk Timber Investment, LLC buyer. Specifically, Ayer contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in enjoining him from selling the property to a third party, because 1 the parties never entered into an enforceable contract, 2 the trial court relied on inadmissible evidence, and 3 Norfolk had not met the contract’s conditions precedent to Ayer’s obligation to perform. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. “A trial court may issue an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo until the final hearing if, by balancing the relative conveniences of the parties, it determines that they favor the party seeking the injunction.” Hampton Island Founders v. Liberty Capital. 1 That is because an interlocutory injunction “is a device to keep the parties in order, and prevent one from hurting the other whilst their respective rights are under adjudication.” Kirtland v. Mayor and Council of Macon .2 “There must be some vital necessity for the injunction so that one of the parties will not be damaged and left without adequate remedy.” Punctuation omitted. Hampton Island Founders v. Liberty Capital , supra. “The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether to grant or deny a request for an interlocutory injunction, and the appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s exercise of its discretion unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown or there was no evidence on which to base the ruling.” Citations omitted. Chambers v. Peach County .3
The undisputed evidence shows that, in the process of assembling land to construct a cement plant, Norfolk sought to purchase from Ayer a 6.46 acre tract of land that would provide access between the proposed cement plant and a railway. Norfolk prepared a contract and provided it to Ayer, who, after striking through one paragraph, signed it on March 20, 2007. There is evidence that Norfolk’s representative then initialed the change and signed the contract. The contract provided that the closing would be held on or before June 1, 2007; however, the closing was delayed, allegedly due to a problem obtaining a survey. Ayer and Norfolk continued to work toward closing the transaction, and, on July 30, 2007, Norfolk executed the closing documents, and Ayer allegedly told Norfolk that he would execute them the next day. Ayer did not execute the closing documents, and Norfolk, in September 2007, obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining Ayer from selling or otherwise encumbering the land, and sued Ayer for specific performance, seeking an interlocutory injunction prohibiting any sale to another party. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the interlocutory injunction pending discovery and trial on Norfolk’s specific performance claim. Ayer now directly appeals. See OCGA § 5-6-34 a 4.
