Defendant USA Manufacturing Corp. “USA” appeals from the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiff Perfection-Schwank, Inc. “Schwank”, in the underlying breach of contract action. For reasons explained below, we affirm. 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 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. Citation omitted. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997. So viewed, the record shows that on or about November 20, 2001, USA executed a promissory note for $284,325.00, which was the amount that it owed Schwank in connection with the purchase of residential heaters. Under the terms of the note, payment was due in full by the maturity date, May 14, 2002; however, USA failed to satisfy the note. There is evidence in the record that as of September 11, 2002, the balance on the note was $200,267.35.
On June 18, 2002, Schwank filed suit against USA alleging breach of contract. In its answer, USA admitted liability but disputed the amount of damages owed. Schwank moved for judgment on the pleadings on October 18, 2002, but a hearing was not held until one year later, on October 27, 2003. During the time between the filing of the motion and the hearing, the parties attempted to reach a settlement. George Horich, the president and general manager of Schwank, sent a proposed settlement agreement to William E. Daniels, the president of USA, dated August 14, 2003. Under the proposed agreement, USA would pay Schwank the total sum of $167,642.79 in monthly payments of $10,000.00 each, with the entire amount to be fully paid by November 5, 2004. The proposed agreement required USA’s consent to the entry of judgment against it in Georgia and Indiana for any outstanding indebtedness if it did not strictly adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement.1 It further provided that Schwank would provide fuel change-over kits, also called “conversion kits,” to USA, the cost of which was included in the $167,642.79 owed to Schwank. Horich’s signature appeared on the third page of the three-page document. In a letter accompanying the proposed agreement, Horich directed Daniels to sign the agreement and to provide two checks: the August 2003 payment of $10,000.00 and another in the amount of $3,785.85 to cover the cost of the conversion kits.
