Atlanta Real Estate Acquisitions, LLC “AREA” filed the underlying lawsuit against Jean W. McClung and Vernell Osborne the “Property Owners” seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of land and damages for bad faith. The Property Owners defended on the grounds that the alleged contract failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds and was therefore unenforceable. The trial court denied the Property Owners’ motion for a directed verdict, and submitted the case to the jury, which found in favor of AREA. Following its denial of the Property Owners’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding verdict, the trial court granted AREA specific performance and awarded them $2,500 in attorney fees as bad faith damages. Following the denial of their motion for a new trial, the Property Owners filed this appeal. The Property Owners allege as error the trial court’s admission of parol evidence to prove a valid and binding contract and the denial of their motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial. They further enumerate as error the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the effect of their deposit of an earnest money check and on the issue of bad faith. Finding that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to provide a legally sufficient description of the property at issue, and that without such evidence there was no legally enforceable contract, we reverse.
Under Georgia law, a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict is permitted only where “there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material fact and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.” Citation omitted Rose v. Cain , 247 Ga. App. 481, 482 1 544 SE2d 453 2001. Consequently, the denial of these motions will be affirmed if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motions, “there is any evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.” Id. The threshold issue on this appeal, however, is not the sufficiency of the evidence; rather, it is whether the Parol Evidence Rule permitted the introduction of that evidence. Inasmuch as this question is one of law, we review the trial court’s decision thereon under the “plain legal error” standard. Stephens v. Hypes , 271 Ga. App. 863, 865 610 SE2d 631 2005
