The Annice Heygood Trevitt Support Trust the “Trust” brought suit against Colman Keane on a promissory note and guaranty agreement.1 The Trust moved for summary judgment, arguing inter alia that Keane failed to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact. And Keane, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment of Dismissal.” The trial court granted the Trust’s motion and denied the motion filed by Keane. Keane appeals. Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling, we affirm. “To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.”2 Viewed in a light favorable to Keane, the non-movant, the record reveals that the Trust filed suit against Keane. Attached to the complaint was the promissory note, which contained the following guaranty agreement: the undersigned acknowledge that they are the shareholders of DQDAL, Inc. and that they were guarantors of the Promissory Note replaced by this Agreement. The undersigned, representing that they are the shareholders of DQDAL, Inc., hereby guarantee the prompt and full payment of the foregoing obligations of DQDAL, Inc., including interest and any cost of collection as set forth in the Agreement if not paid when due according to the Agreement without need for recourse by the holder against any other party. The undersigned waive present, notice of dishonor, protest and demand to which the undersigned might be entitled. The undersigned consent to any extensions or renewals of the Agreement without any notice thereof which shall not in any way impair recourse of discharge this guaranty. /S/ Colman Keane /S/
Ronald Crawford
