The City of McCaysville appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Cardinal Robotics, LLC CR, on the City’s counterclaim against CR seeking to rescind a real estate sale. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citations omitted. Preferred Real Estate Equities v. Housing Systems , 248 Ga. App. 745 548 SE2d 646 2001. The underlying litigation in this appeal is multi-faceted, and involves claims brought by CR against multiple defendants to quiet title and for encroachment and trespass. CR initially sought to require the City to prosecute the company’s action to quiet title to more than 33 acres which the City had deeded to CR. The City answered and counterclaimed against CR, seeking to rescind the 1994 sales contract. The City alleged that CR failed to make certain payments on the property, and made false representations when it entered into the sales contract. The City further alleged failure of consideration. CR subsequently amended its complaint to allege that the City had breached its warranty to defend CR’s title to the property.
CR moved for summary judgment on the City’s counterclaim, arguing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the alleged false statements the City relied on were not actionable fraud, being either statements of future intent or statements made years after the parties entered into the contract. The City responded that the statute did not begin to run when the contract was entered, but when CR’s obligation to pay a percentage of its gross profits began, which was in 1997. Further, it argued, CR’s 1998 refusal to provide information about its income deterred the City from acting earlier. Finally, the City contended that it was entitled to rescind the contract under OCGA § 13-4-62 for CR’s failure to perform. In a brief order, the trial court granted summary judgment to CR on the City’s counterclaim, and the City appeals.
