Family Government Offers & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Accused Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following demo legal directed a verdict and only plaintiff Domestic Government Coupons & Loan Organization (Household Government) regarding Ramos’s accountability towards an unsecured loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage manager getting Home Federal, discussed the latest contract which have Brooks and you can prepared around three documents-the loan amendment arrangement, the brand new promissory notice together with [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos are president of the Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. try the entire partner away from a restricted commitment, the Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), shaped to do the fresh Peacock Ridge framework opportunity. Anywhere between September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Federal loaned almost $7.cuatro billion toward Peacock partnership. Each of the four operating-system.

At that time, Peacock owed reasonable sums inside accrued focus and had almost every other debt concerning the the project. House Government accepted a great “work out contract” in which they forgave all but $100,one hundred thousand of your own attention and you can provided to loan Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100000. In exchange, Peacock promised to perform a promissory mention to have $150,100000 protected by your own warranty closed because of the Ramos.

The latest work out agreement was negotiated with respect to Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. Application. three-dimensional 1612] personal warranty-that he brought to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the three finalized documents so you can Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The brand new promissory notice given a trademark range to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding R/J Co. as the general companion out-of Peacock. Ramos closed the fresh new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee provided the second medical words:

By the November 1986, financial loans in Columbine difficulties into the project brought about Peacock so you can standard to your House Government fund

“Inside the planning of your loan throughout the Connection in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you can for any reason make certain and you may promise to blow in order to Relationship, otherwise whomever Association sales me to spend, any and all indebtedness regarding Borrower so you can Connection evidenced by, or in in any manner connected with the loan (also not simply for additional advances or money) and/or notice, in order to do every covenants and you can agreements from Debtor within the notice or people security arrangement anywhere between Borrower and you will Organization.” The latest trademark line towards the bottom of one’s document delivered to the brand new trademark regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos finalized it as he’d closed the promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted towards the the newest notice and you will Household Federal delivered match to demand the fresh guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one to their signature once the “Pres.” expressed an intent so you’re able to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. and not himself personally towards the warranty. During the close of all of the research, the fresh demo judge provided Household Federal’s activity for a brought decision, concluding it was bound by the latest court’s decision inside Sebastian Around the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start out with a term about the proceeding pose of one’s instance. The fresh demo courtroom brought a decision against Ramos, concluding you will find no disagreement when you look at the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational research and you may trusting itself limited by an earlier Judge out-of Appeal choice. (Discover basically Automobile Security Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In the absence of a regulating appellate choice, but not, the brand new judge is actually right from inside the deciding that zero jury concern is actually demonstrated. As the Finest Court told me when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “This new translation away from an authored tool, even though it involves what might safely be titled issues of fact [citation], is essentially an official setting becoming exercised with regards to the essentially recognized canons out-of translation so the reason for the fresh new software is generally provided impression. . Making it exclusively a judicial mode to help you understand a created device unless the interpretation turns upon the fresh credibility out-of extrinsic evidence.” (Id. from the p. 865; come across plus Medical Functions Administration, Inc. v. Federal Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since functions exhibited little relevant no contradictory extrinsic proof (come across Pacific Gas & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 Good.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the brand new trial courtroom securely refused to complete the newest interpretation of your written guaranty toward jury. (Look for Medical Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional in the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) While doing so, not, we because the evaluating legal check out the proof and you may interpret the fresh new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional from the p. 891.)