Phipps, Senior Appellate Judge. In this contract dispute, Shama Patel sued her brother, Prakash Patel, alleging that (1) she and Prakash entered into a written agreement in which Shama agreed to transfer her 50 percent ownership interest in a house in London to Prakash in exchange for a payment of £24,850 from Prakash, and (2) Prakash breached that agreement by failing to pay Shama the £24,850. Shama asserted claims for rescission, breach of contract, and attorney fees and costs of litigation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Shama on her claim for breach of contract and denied summary judgment to Prakash. Prakash appeals, contending that the trial court erred by finding that the alleged agreement was supported by consideration and unambiguously required him to personally pay the £24,850 to Shama. Prakash also argues that the trial court made additional findings of fact that were unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by evidence presented by him. Finally, Prakash asserts that Shama’s claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Shama because we find that there is a material dispute as to whether there was consideration for the alleged agreement, but we affirm the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Prakash, as he has not met his burden of showing the absence of any other disputed issues of material fact. The record shows that in October 2012, Prakash and Shama’s father, Indubhai Patel, who was beginning to suffer from dementia, granted Prakash power of attorney over his property and financial affairs. At some point prior to April 2013, Indubhai transferred ownership of a house in London to Prakash and Shama. After the transfer from Indubhai, Prakash and Shama each owned a 50 percent interest in the house. During mid-2014, Prakash and Shama discussed the possibility of voiding the original transfer from Indubhai and selling the house to pay Indubhai’s expenses. E-mails from Prakash and Shama discussing the possible sale of the house also refer to repaying Shama for payments that Shama contends on appeal were funds she “advanced [to] her sister Pallavi . . . against [Pallavi's] anticipated interest in Indubhai’s estate.” Ultimately, in November 2014, Prakash, Shama, and Indubhai met and signed a document transferring title of the London house from Prakash and Shama as transferors to Prakash and Indubhai as transferees. The transfer document provides that Prakash and Indubhai “are to hold the property [i]n trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares.” The transfer document also states that the transfer “is not for money or anything that has monetary value.” As an “additional provision,” the document states that the transfer “is made in consideration of the natural love and affection that Shama . . . has for her father Indubhai[.]“ During the November 2014 meeting, Prakash and Shama signed a document[1] formatted as a letter from Prakash to Shama which states, in relevant part: RE: Full and Final Settlement of UK House Transfer Please find attached: 1. House share transfer document prepared by Anthony Gold solicitors in the UK[; and] 2. Various Barclays Bank documents to a) confirm your signature on the account (the Norbury branch does not have your signature card), b) authorize me as a third party to handle his current account and c) remove you from the Joint current account[.] Once you have signed these documents, I will send them to Sean Carroll and Barclays Bank, as appropriate. I confirm that once I have notification from Sean Carroll, Anthony Gold that the UK house transfer has been recorded, as full and final settlement of the money you have paid to Pallavi on behalf of Dad, I will authorize the transfer of £24,850 to your following account in the UK: Barclays Bank, Account Name Mrs S R Patel Account Number [deleted] Sort Code [deleted]
