Jane and Richard Webb entered into a contract to purchase a home from Brian J. Bourke d/b/a Richland Homes “Bourke”. When a dispute arose between the parties prior to the completion of the home and the closing of the sale, the Webbs filed a claim seeking to require Bourke’s specific performance of the agreement. The Webbs’ real estate agent, Uncle Remus Realty, Inc., and Bourke’s real estate agent, Edgewater Realty, Inc. collectively the “Agents” intervened in the case, alleging that they were entitled to receive commissions from Bourke in connection with the sale of the home. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the Webbs’ claim for specific performance by Bourke to complete the home sale, granted the Agents’ claims for commissions, and further awarded attorney fees to both the Webbs and the Agents. Asserting several enumerations, Bourke challenges both the trial court’s findings and its attorney fee awards. Since evidence supported the trial court’s findings and conclusions, we discern no error and affirm. On appellate review of a bench trial, the factual findings shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. In bench trials, the judge sits as trier of fact and the court’s findings are analogous to a jury’s verdict and should not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. Punctuation and footnote omitted. Zhou v. LaGrange Academy , 266 Ga. App. 445, 449 1 597 SE2d 522 2004. Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the evidence reveals that the Webbs entered into a contract to purchase a home to be built by Bourke. The sales price of the home was $467,900,1 but the contract provided that this price could be adjusted based on items that were not completed before closing. The parties executed five amendments to the sales contract, four of which extended the closing date based on Bourke’s failure to complete construction of the house.
Two days before the scheduled closing under the fifth amendment to the contract, it became apparent to the Webbs that Bourke would, again, not have the house ready by the extended closing date. The Webbs proposed a sixth amendment to the agreement, this time not only extending the closing date but also reducing the price of the house in light of the unfinished items that had previously been incorporated into the sales agreement. Bourke submitted a counter offer to the proposed sixth amendment that was virtually identical to the amendment offered by the Webbs, with the exception of a $4,260 “builder’s fee” that Bourke sought to add to the contract price. This builder’s fee had not been included in the original sales contract, nor had it been included in any of the five previous amendments.
