because the right to redeem the property expired after the 1974 tax sale. See BX Corp. v. Hickory Hill 1185, 285 Ga. 5, 7-8 (673 SE2d 205) (2009). Compare with Moultrie v. Wright, 266 Ga. 30, 31-32 (1) (464 SE2d 194) (1995), superseded by statute as stated in Community Renewal & Redemption v. Nix, 279 Ga. 840, 842 (1) (621 SE2d 722) (2005). 7 The defendants dispute the authenticity of the e-mails and produced a computer forensics expert to provide support for their argument that the e-mails were altered by a third party to include the language about assistance payments. 8 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Nicholson v. Windham, 257 Ga. App. 429, 430 (1) (571 SE2d 466) (2002). 9 Compare with Schoenbaum Limited Co. v. Lenox Pines, 262 Ga. App. 457, 471 (8) (c) (585 SE2d 643) (2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 Id. 11 See id. at 470-471 (8) (c). 12
holding that a question of fact existed as to whether defendants alleged predicate acts directly injured plaintiff under the parties real estate development contract after defendants forced plaintiff out of further development of the property holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding no liability in negligence for plaintiffs outofpocket development costs allegedly lost as a result of defendants pollution injury to property which plaintiff had option to purchase