Tullis Developments, Inc. “Tullis” entered into a written contract to sell 13 residential lots to 3M Construction, Inc., TLM Homes, LLC, and Donald R. Barret, LLC collectively “the Builders”. The contract included a buy-back provision. Thereafter, the Builders requested that Tullis buy back four of the lots pursuant to the buy-back provision. The parties did not close on the repurchase of the four lots because they were unable to reach agreement regarding price and other issues, including whether Tullis was responsible for costs, interest, and other fees. The Builders filed suit against Tullis for a declaratory judgment and for breach of contract. Tullis filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, and moved for summary judgment.1 The trial court denied Tullis’s motion for summary judgment as to the Builders’ claim for declaratory judgment, clarified the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the contract, essentially dismissed the parties’ breach of contract claims, and granted a declaratory judgment to the Builders. In two enumerations of error, Tullis contends that the trial court erred in granting a declaratory judgment and in denying its motion for summary judgment. For reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal of the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence and law de novo.2 “Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing all the facts and evidence and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant, concludes that the evidence does not create a triable issue as to each essential element of the case.”3
So viewed, the evidence shows that the parties’ contract for the initial purchase of 13 lots included a special stipulation that “in the event the Builders are unable to build on any lot or install a conventional septic tank on any lot, Tullis agrees to buy the lot back.” After the initial purchase, the Builders asserted that four of the lots were unsuitable for conventional septic tanks and requested that Tullis buy back those lots. Although Tullis agreed to repurchase the lots, the parties ultimately did not consummate the closing because they disagreed on several issues. Specifically, the Builders insisted that Tullis pay interest, loan fees, and other fees and expenses. Although Tullis insists that it was willing to pay the closing costs for the transactions, the deposition testimony of its owners/employees belies this assertion.
