Appellants entered into a contract to purchase real estate and the existing business situated thereon from appellee Floyd who was acting as the executrix of her mother's estate. Appellee Norris, Floyd's brother and a real estate broker, wrote the sales contract and acted on behalf of his sister. Through the contract appellee Floyd acknowledged receipt of $2,500 earnest money from appellants, and the parties, agreeing that time was of the essence, stipulated that the sale was to be closed on or before May 1, 1985. The sale between the parties was never closed and appellee Floyd subsequently sold the property and business to another. Appellants filed suit seeking the return of their earnest money and appellees counterclaimed for damages they allegedly suffered due to the failure to close the deal with appellants. A bench trial resulted in the denial of the relief sought by appellants, and they now appeal.

1. In their first enumerated error, appellants claim that the judgment entered was not supported by the evidence.

From the evidence of record, the trial court was authorized to find and did find that, prior to the May 1 deadline, Mrs. McGuire verbally registered her objection to Norris that the property was not zoned for the business. Even though the seller was in no way contractually obligated to ensure proper zoning of the property, Norris immediately undertook to correct the zoning problem and informed appellants it would be corrected at the next city council meeting, May 8. The trial court held that the parties, in effect, extended the closing deadline of May 1 to May 8. On May 4, Mrs. McGuire informed Norris that due to her husband's ill health, they were unable to go through with the purchase of the property and business. The trial court held that the McGuires thereby breached the contract and forfeited the earnest money. After considering appellees' counterclaim, the court found neither appellee entitled to damages because payments made by them to improve and maintain the property were strictly voluntary in nature. However, the trial court did allow appellees to keep the $2,500 earnest money.

2. Appellants complain that the trial court failed to rule that appellee Norris was a party to the contract and as such was required to disclose in writing that he was a licensed real estate broker. Pretermitting any discussion of the merit of appellees' position is the fact that the record "discloses no ruling by the court . . . except to hold it in abeyance. It was the duty of counsel to invoke a final ruling on his [objection], and his failure to do so precludes our review . . . on appeal. [Cits.]" Bautz v. Best, 170 Ga. App. 219 (4) (316 SE2d 589) (1984).

Charles J. Reich, for appellees.