This interlocutory appeal arises from Janet Ackerman’s suit to recover money she paid Ameris Bancorp the “Bank” as a guarantor on a note. Following the denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Bank contends that the trial court erred by failing to enforce certain exculpatory clauses in the guaranty and a related lease agreement. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm. “On appeal, we review de novo the trial court’s decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and we construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the appellant, drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor.”1 “When deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the issue is whether the undisputed facts appearing from the pleadings entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. All well-pleaded material allegations by the nonmovant are taken as true, and all denials by the movant are taken as false.”2
So viewed, the record shows that, in 1985, to finance the construction of a veterinary clinic, the City of Cairo Development Authority the “City” borrowed $130,000 from the Bank3 and executed a note obligating it to make monthly payments toward the principal plus interest based on an adjustable rate over a 20-year term. The same day, the City executed a lease entitling Ackerman4 to occupy the premises of the new veterinary clinic as lessee and obligating her to make monthly lease payments to the City in an amount equal to the amount due under the note. The lease likewise obligated the City to promptly deliver the payment to the Bank as payment for the note. In connection with the lease, Ackerman executed a separate two-page guaranty obligating her to make the note payments and pay any balance remaining at maturity if the City failed to pay. Also, as part of the lease, Ackerman obtained an option to purchase the property for an amount equivalent to the balance due under the note plus $15 at or prior to expiration of the lease, which followed the same 20-year term as the note. Finally, the City assigned its interest in the lease to the Bank, so Ackerman was essentially making lease payments to the Bank directly, in an amount equal to the debt on the note. The Bank retained a security deed securing the note.
