In this action to collect on a guaranty, alleged guarantor Pamela Dabbs appeals the order granting summary judgment to alleged promisee Key Equipment Finance, Inc. “Key Equipment” and denying summary judgment to her. She argues that the guaranty in question omitted several critical elements, including the identification of the debt, of the principal debtor, and of the promisee. We agree, rejecting Key Equipment’s argument that the lease allegedly being guaranteed supplied those missing elements, since we note that that lease was not attached to the guaranty at the time it was executed. Thus, that lease could only be connected as a contemporaneous writing with the guaranty if the court were to consider parol evidence to exclude two similar leases executed at the same time. Because the court should have granted summary judgment to Dabbs, we reverse. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp .1
The evidence here is undisputed. On June 20, 2005, Dabbs’s employer executed a preprinted lease agreement, which in the appropriate box identified the equipment being leased. In the owner box, the lease identified Key Equipment as the owner of the equipment, with the blanks for payments being filled in to obligate the employer to make 51 monthly payments of $2,473.20 to Key Equipment “Lease No. 1″. That same day, Dabbs’s employer executed a second, identical preprinted lease referring to the same equipment and again identifying Key Equipment as the owner of the equipment but obligating the employer to make 51 monthly payments of $2,732.85 to Key Equipment “Lease No. 2″. Ten days later on June 30, Dabbs’s employer executed a third identical preprinted lease, again referring to the same equipment but this time identifying CIT Technology Financing Services, Inc. as the owner and obligating the employer to make 51 payments of $2,732.85 to CIT “Lease No. 3″. All three leases on the front page had a separate identical paragraph setting forth a guaranty of the lease obligation, which paragraph had its own separate signature line for a guarantor to sign. None of these three guaranty paragraphs were signed. At least two of the leases had the same second page identifying additional terms and conditions, including a paragraph 14 that related to the employer’s consenting to the jurisdiction of a certain court.
