Dillard, Presiding Judge. Michael Parnell appeals the trial court’s grant of temporary injunctive relief to his former employer, Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc. (“S&H”), which prohibited him from violating certain non-competition provisions in his employment agreement. In doing so, Parnell argues that the trial court abused its discretion because (1) S&H’s complaint and motion for a temporary injunction were not sufficiently verified; and (2) S&H failed to allege or prove all of the prerequisites necessary to obtain a temporary injunction. In a consolidated brief with Parnell, RE/MAX River Realty Company, Lisa Pops, and Michael Pops (the “RE/MAX parties”)[1] appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint (i.e., a claim against them for tortious interference with business relationships) or, alternatively, for a judgment on the pleadings—which they contend was converted to a motion for summary judgment because the court considered matters outside the pleadings. Specifically, the RE/MAX parties argue the employment contract at issue was void, and even if that were not the case, S&H’s claim against them for tortious interference with its business relationships fails because S&H did not allege and prove the elements required to establish such a claim. For the reasons set forth infra, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The record shows that,[2] under the terms of an independent contractor agreement, Parnell worked for S&H as a real estate agent from November 2016 until May 12, 2020, when the agreement was terminated.[3] The agreement included confidentiality, non-solicitation, and non-competition clauses. Specifically, Section 17 (a) of the agreement—i.e., the confidentiality clause—provides: [Parnell] acknowledges and agrees that the information as to the business procedures and methods, including the name of clients and customers, their buying practices[,] and the products sold to particular clients of [S&H] are valuable trade secrets of [S&H]. Parnell expressly covenants and agrees that, during the term of this agreement and for a [period] of two years after the termination of this agreement for any reason (whether or not with cause), [he] will not communicate or divulge, or use any confidential information concerning the business of [S&H] without express consent of [S&H]. This provision also included a detailed definition for what constitutes “confidential information” for purposes of the agreement. Next, Section 17 (b) of the agreement—i.e., the non-solicitation clause— provides that, subject to the time limitations applicable to the previous clause, [Parnell] shall not . . . on his . . . behalf or on behalf of any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation[,] or business organization, entity, enterprise other than [S&H], solicit, contact, or call upon any customer of [S&H] or any representative of any customer or prospective customer of [S&H] with a [view] to facilitating the sale, rental, lease[,] or management of real property to or on behalf of said customer. Provided, that these restrictions shall apply only to those customers or prospects of [S&H], with respect to whom [Parnell] had Material Contact with such customer or prospect or representative of such customers or prospects of [S&H] during the period of Twelve (12) months immediately preceding cessation of this agreement. A “Material Contact” as that term is used herein, exits between [Parnell] and each customer or potential customer of [S&H] (or their representative) if interaction took place between them in an effort to further a business relationship with [S&H]. Lastly, Section 17 (c) of the agreement—i.e., the non-competition clause—provides, in relevant part, that [Parnell] expressly covenants and agrees that [he] will not, during the term of [his] employment with [S&H] and for a period of one (1) year after the termination of [his] services, for [himself] individually or on behalf of any other person, partnership, association, corporation, be employed by, provide services for, or receive compensation from any business which provides real estate sales and rental services which are the same or similar to that of [S&H], within the area known as the Central Savannah River Area . . . . The non-competition clause then goes on to list the Georgia counties comprising the so-called Central Savannah River Area and provides that, if Parnell violates this provision, he “shall immediately and prior to providing said competing services, pay to [S&H] a lump-sum cash payment in the amount of ten[ ] thousand dollars ($10,000).” According to the complaint, Parnell actively engaged in residential and commercial real estate sales in the Central Savannah River Area while employed by S&H, and immediately following the termination of the employment agreement, the RE/MAX parties hired “Parnell to perform the same or substantially the same[ ] services as [he] performed at [S&H] and in the same geographic area.” Furthermore, without S&H’s prior consent, “Parnell communicated with and solicited [S&H's] clients to cancel their contract(s) with [S&H], and sign new contract(s) with RE/MAX.” S&H further contended that “Parnell communicated and solicited [S&H's] clients on behalf of RE/MAX with whom he had material contacts on behalf of [S&H] within the twelve months preceding the termination of [the] agreement.” And during this time, S&H repeatedly warned Parnell and the RE/MAX parties that Parnell was in violation of the employment agreement and provided them with a copy of same, but Parnell refused S&H’s demand that he cease and desist the prohibited conduct. Based on the foregoing, S&H filed a two-count complaint, asserting a breach-of-contract claim against Parnell (Count 1) and a claim of tortious interference with contractual or business relationships against the RE/MAX parties (Count 2).[4] In addition, S&H filed a motion for an injunction and temporary restraining order,[5] requesting that the court prohibit the appellants from continuing to violate the employment agreement by calling upon, soliciting, and inducing its clients to move their business from S&H to RE/MAX. The RE/MAX parties responded, opposing the imposition of a temporary injunction and moving the court to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint or, alternatively, for a judgment on the pleadings. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court ultimately granted S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction only as to Parnell. Specifically, the trial court, pending its further determination of the issues, prohibited Parnell from (1) communicating, divulging, or using S&H’s confidential information; (2) soliciting, contacting, or calling upon S&H’s customers or any representative of any of its customers or prospective customers with a view to facilitate the sale, rental, lease, or management of real property to or on behalf of said customer; and (3) providing services for, or receiving compensation from, any business which provides real estate sales and rental services, which are the same or similar to that of S&H within the Central Savannah River Area. At the conclusion of its order, the trial court summarily denied the RE/MAX parties’ motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint. This appeal follows. 1. As a preliminary matter, S&H asks this Court to remand this case to the trial court for completion of the record. Specifically, S&H contends that Parnell and the RE/MAX parties failed to satisfy their burden of ensuring the transcript of the relevant motions hearing was included in the record on appeal. We disagree that such a burden exists. Georgia law specifies the procedure for “the inclusion of a transcript in an appellate record.”[6] Specifically, under OCGA § 5637, a notice of appeal “shall state whether or not any transcript of evidence and proceedings is to be transmitted as a part of the record on appeal.” Thus, this provision leaves “the choice of whether to include a transcript in the appellate record to the appellant.”[7] And if an appellant desires that a transcript be made part of the record on appeal, he “must say so in [his] notice of appeal, have the transcript prepared at [his] own expense, and have it filed with the trial court within 30 days of the filing of the notice of appeal, unless [he] obtains an extension of time from the trial court.”[8] Here, Parnell and the RE/MAX parties’ notice of appeal listed various portions of the trial court record to be omitted from the appellate record and then specifically noted, “[a] transcript of the November 6, 202[0] [motions hearing] will not be included in the record on appeal.”[9] And under OCGA § 5-6-37, the appellants were not required to ensure this transcript was available to this Court. Instead, they merely had to indicate whether or not the transcript was to be included in the appellate record, which they did.[10] Even so, S&H contends that evidence necessary for the resolution of this appeal was presented at the relevant hearing and suggests such evidence was intentionally excluded by the appellants because it was unfavorable to them. But under OCGA § 5-6-42, if the appellant designates any matter to be omitted from the record on appeal as provided in Code Section 5637, the appellee may—within 15 days of being served with the notice of appeal by appellant—”file a designation of record designating that all or part of the omitted matters be included in the record on appeal.”[11] This, the appellee did not do. Furthermore, there is no evidence S&H objected in the trial court to the exclusion of the hearing transcript on appeal or that the court ruled on the matter. And under this Court’s rules, its failure to do so waived any objections relating to the filing of a transcript.[12] As a result, we decline to remand this case to the trial court for it to supplement the appellate record with the motions hearing transcript. 2. Next, Parnell argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction. But given the state of the record as it currently exists, we must vacate the trial court’s ruling in this regard and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is well established that the purpose for granting temporary injunctions is “to preserve the status quo, as well as balance the conveniences of the parties, pending a final adjudication of the case.”[13] And while such an injunction is “an extraordinary remedy, and the power to grant it must be prudently and cautiously exercised, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in making that decision.”[14] With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Parnell’s specific claims of error. (a) First, Parnell argues the trial court erred in granting S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction because the complaint and motion requesting it were not adequately verified. In this regard, the failure to file a verified complaint “can be amended and does not subject the injunction to dismissal if it was supported by evidence; [but] [an] unverified petition [requesting injunctive relief] must be supported by other satisfactory proofs, i.e., affidavit, deposition, or oral testimony.”[15] Here, S&H failed to file any verification to support its complaint, but again, “[g]enerally, the failure to verify a complaint is an amendable defect, and a reasonable time is allowed for a defective pleading to be amended.”[16] But unlike the complaint, S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction included a verification, noting that the “Broker-President of [S&H], do[es] hereby swear and attest that the facts set forth in the above Verified Motion for [an] Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order are true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge.”[17] And importantly, our Supreme Court has held that “[a] verification of a petition by a person to the effect ‘that the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of his information and belief’ is not a positive verification . . . .”[18] Regardless, the trial court’s order did not address or acknowledge the appellants’ argument below that S&H’s complaint and motion were not sufficiently verified. At best, it implicitly rejected this argument without identifying the “satisfactory proofs” it believed rendered S&H’s failure to positively verify its motion for injunctive relief unnecessary. To the contrary, the trial court stated—in ruling on the motion—that it considered only pleadings, responsive pleadings, and oral argument.[19] Suffice it to say, we are “a court of review, not of first view.”[20] As a result, we must vacate the trial court’s grant of temporary injunctive relief and remand the case for it to address, in the first instance, the appellants’ contention that S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction should be denied for lack of proper verification.[21] (b) Parnell also contends the trial court erred in granting S&H’s motion for temporary injunctive relief because it failed to allege or prove the elements required for the trial court to grant such relief. But given our holding in Division 2 (a) supra, it is premature to address this claim of error. 3. Next, the RE/MAX parties argue the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint. We agree. (a) As a preliminary matter, the RE/MAX parties maintain their motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint was converted into one for summary judgment because the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings. In this regard, OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) provides, in part, that [i]f, on a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Code Section 91156, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Code Section 91156. As our Supreme Court has explained that [i]f, on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the trial court elects to consider matters outside of the pleadings, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Code Section 9-11-56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by that code section.[22] On appeal, the RE/MAX parties identify two documents the trial court allegedly considered outside the pleadings—affidavits executed by Parnell and Michael Pops. But they provide no legal authority or record support for their apparent contention that the trial court considered this evidence in denying their motion to dismiss solely because these affidavits were filed. As previously explained, in its order denying the motion at issue, the trial court expressly noted that it considered only the pleadings, responsive pleadings, and oral argument in making its decision. And in the absence of either record or transcript showing otherwise, this Court “must presume the correctness of [a] ruling by the trial court.”[23] Thus, we reject the RE/MAX parties’ contention that the trial court improperly considered the affidavits at issue when denying their motion to dismiss, such that it was converted to one for summary judgment. (b) The RE/MAX parties also argue the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint because S&H failed to allege facts or present any evidence to establish the criteria necessary to sustain its claim for tortious interference with business relationships. We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, “accepting as true all well[pleaded] material allegations in the complaint and resolving any doubts in favor of the plaintiff.”[24] Even so, we are under no obligation to “adopt a party’s legal conclusions based on these facts.”[25] Furthermore, [a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted should not be sustained unless (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought.[26] Turning to the instant case, a plaintiff may sustain a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship when he establishes (1) improper action or wrongful conduct by the defendant without privilege; (2) the defendant acted purposely and with malice with the intent to injure; (3) the defendant induced a breach of contractual obligations or caused a party or third parties to discontinue or fail to enter into an anticipated business relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) the defendant’s tortious conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff.[27] And there is no requirement that “a valid contract already exist to establish or maintain a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship.”[28] Here, S&H’s complaint alleged the RE/MAX parties (1) hired Parnell to perform the same or substantially similar services to those he performed for S&H within the same geographic region; (2) conspired with or fostered Parnell’s breach of the non-competition clauses in his employment agreement; (3) continued to breach the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses with Parnell even after receiving notice of the agreement; (4) acted with malice to injure S&H’s current business relationships with its clients and customers or its prospective clients and customers; and (5) caused S&H’s clients and customers or prospective clients and customers to discontinue their relationships or discussions for further business relationships with S&H. As to the requirement that their tortious actions must be done without privilege,[29] the RE/MAX parties argue that S&H’s claim for tortious interference with business relationships fails because the complaint did not allege they were a “stranger” to Parnell’s employment agreement or his underlying business relationship with S&H. In this regard, our Supreme Court has emphasized that “to be liable for tortious interference with business relations, one must be a stranger to the business relationship giving rise to and underpinning the contract.“[30] And when a defendant had “a legitimate interest in either the contract or a party to the contract, he is not a stranger to the contract itself or to the business relationship giving rise thereto and underpinning the contract.”[31] Furthermore, the fact that “a defendant did not sign the contract [does not] preclude a finding that he was no stranger to the contract.”[32] Simply put, all parties to “an interwoven contractual arrangement are not liable for tortious interference with any of the contracts or business relationships.”[33] Thus, for this reason, “proof that the defendant was no stranger to the business relations at issue is fatal to the plaintiff’s claim of tortious interference with business relations.”[34] Here, even accepting the factual allegations in S&H’s complaint as true, it is evident that the RE/MAX parties were not strangers to the employment agreement or to the underlying business relationship between Parnell and S&H—even if they were not signatories to the agreement. Indeed, according to the complaint, the RE/MAX parties hired Parnell to perform the same or similar real estate services that he performed for S&H, and they then conspired with him in his alleged contractual breaches. Not only that, the complaint alleged Parnell communicated with and solicited S&H’s clients on behalf of the RE/MAX parties. In other words, the RE/MAX parties had a legitimate financial interest in Parnell potentially violating the agreement by inducing S&H’s clients or potential clients to move their business from S&H to RE/MAX. Thus, S&H’s complaint failed to allege any facts, much less sufficient facts, to establish that the RE/MAX parties were strangers to the agreement or business relationships underlying it, and thus, the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint.[35] For all these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the RE/MAX parties’ motion to dismiss Count 2 of the complaint, vacate its grant of S&H’s motion for a temporary injunction, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded with direction. Mercier and Markle, JJ., concur.
