(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, 313 Ga.App. 118, 119 n. 7, 720 S.E.2d 176 (2011).In 2015, the Association sued Regent for breach of contract, among other claims, alleging that Regent had violated the Easement by selectively allowing vehicular access through the traffic control gate during closure of the roadway system, including the BUC and private security vehicles, to the exclusion of the Association.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, 313 Ga.App. 118, 119 n. 7, 720 S.E.2d 176 (2011).In 2015, the Association sued Regent for breach of contract, among other claims, alleging that Regent had violated the Easement by selectively allowing vehicular access through the traffic control gate during closure of the roadway system, including the BUC and private security vehicles, to the exclusion of the Association.

"[A] party can agree to be estopped under circumstances that might not otherwise constitute an estoppel under common law . . . ." Fundus Am. (Atlanta) L.P. v. RHOC Consolidation, L.L.C., 313 Ga. App. 118, 720 S.E.2d 176, 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). Requiring proof of detrimental reliance would be antithetical to the concept of a presumption.

Accord Medders v. Smith, 245 Ga.App. 323, 324(1), 537 S.E.2d 153 (2000) (party asserting estoppel must establish, inter alia, “conduct amounting to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert”). See also Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, 313 Ga.App. 118, 121(1)(a), n. 9, 720 S.E.2d 176 (2011) (party claiming equitable estoppel must prove it is free from fraud in the transaction, and must have acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence). (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.)

(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, LLC, 313 Ga.App. 118, 118, 720 S.E.2d 176 (2011).Mainline brought this suit for $113,731.22, seeking to foreclose a materialman's lien on a building which Pinnacle built on land leased from the Kennesaw Development Authority (“KDA”).

¶ 28 Because Urban Sites' representation that the original site plan was in place at the time the 2005 agreement was executed was clear and unambiguous, Urban Sites is estopped from claiming something else now. See id. at 1143 ("[i]n Illinois, a written contract is presumed to include all material terms agreed upon by the parties, and any prior negotiations or representations are merged into that agreement; extrinsic evidence, parol or otherwise *** is generally inadmissible to alter, vary, or contradict the written instrument"); see also Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, LLC, 720 S.E. 2d 176, 181 (Ga Ct. App. 2011) (the court found the estoppel certificate to be unambiguous and as such, the court held that it "cannot consider parol evidence to add to, take from, contradict or vary the *** contract containing the terms of the [e]stoppel [c]ertificate"). ¶ 29 This is particularly true given that Urban Sites represented in the 2005 agreement that the attached Sprint lease and copies of the original site plan were in full force and effect, contained the entire agreement between Urban Sites and Sprint, and that Urban Sites was bound by the agreement.

¶ 28 Because Urban Sites' representation that the original site plan was in place at the time the 2005 agreement was executed was clear and unambiguous, Urban Sites is estopped from claiming something else now. See id. at 1143, 296 Ill.Dec. 612, 835 N.E.2d 965 ("[i]n Illinois, a written contract is presumed to include all material terms agreed upon by the parties, and any prior negotiations or representations are merged into that agreement; extrinsic evidence, parol or otherwise * * * is generally inadmissible to alter, vary, or contradict the written instrument"); see also Fundus America (Atlanta) Ltd. Partnership v. RHOC Consolidation, LLC, 313 Ga.App. 118, 720 S.E.2d 176, 181 (Ga.Ct.App. 2011) (the court found the estoppel certificate to be unambiguous and as such, the court held that it " cannot consider parol evidence to add to, take from, contradict or vary the * * * contract containing the terms of the [e]stoppel [c]ertificate").¶ 29 This is particularly true given that Urban Sites represented in the 2005 agreement that the attached Sprint lease and copies of the original site plan were in full force and effect, contained the entire agreement between Urban Sites and Sprint, and that Urban Sites was bound by the agreement.