William Waldrop and Linda Richards “appellees” sued Daniel Makowski for equitable cancellation of a lease-purchase option agreement entered into between Waldrop and Makowski. Makowski counterclaimed for fraud, breach of contract, and specific performance of the purchase option. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a detailed order, the trial court granted appellees’ motion, while denying Makowski’s motion. Makowski appeals, and for reasons that follow, we affirm. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record “shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 On appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences most favorably to the non-moving party.2
Viewed in this manner, the evidence shows that Waldrop and Makowski signed a lease-purchase agreement dated April 7, 2000, through which Waldrop leased to Makowski a parcel of land in Forsyth County for six months. Paragraph 10 of the agreement also provided: Makowski shall have the option to renew and extend this lease for an additional 5 terms of equal length by giving written notice to Waldrop prior to the expiration of each lease term or extension. . . . Makowski shall have the exclusive right during the term or any extension thereof to buy the Property at the current value as determined by using the Forsyth County Tax Assessor’s value for the year first above written plus fifteen percent the price based on the first year would be Four hundred five thousand nine hundred fifty dollars, with all proceeds from this agreement applied to the purchase price. The parties do not dispute that Waldrop and Makowski signed this agreement. The events leading up to the signing, however, are hotly contested.
