Morris v. Britt

The defendants were not entitled to the value of repairs and improvements they made to the plaintiff's real property, since they failed to exercise the purchase option in their lease-purchase agreement.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Superior Court of Gwinnett County granted Michael Britt’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim filed by Robert and Rubena Morris in Britt’s dispossessory action. The Morrises appeal, contending jury issues remain on their equitable claim for unjust enrichment for the value of improvements they made to the subject real property. For the following reasons, we affirm. In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence. To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Citation and punctuation omitted. English v. Fulton County Bldg. Authority , 266 Ga. App. 583 597 SE2d 626 2004. The record shows the following undisputed facts. Britt agreed to sell a house to the Morrises for $65,000 under a lease-purchase agreement. The contract provided that the property would be transferred if the Morrises exercised the option to purchase by paying $2500 plus accrued interest on or before June 5, 2000. The Morrises failed to exercise the purchase option by the specified date, but continued to make the required monthly payment through February 2003. In addition, the Morrises made certain repairs and additions to the house.

After the Morrises failed to make the required payment due March 5, 2003, Britt filed dispossessory proceedings. The trial court ordered the Morrises to pay rent into the registry of the court. When the Morrises failed to make a required payment, the trial court entered a writ of possession.

Morris v. Britt

The defendants were not entitled to the value of repairs and improvements they made to the plaintiff's real property, since they failed to exercise the purchase option in their lease-purchase agreement.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report