Home Government Coupons & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view following demonstration legal brought a decision in support of plaintiff Domestic Government Coupons & Financing Organization (House Federal) out-of Ramos’s responsibility towards the a personal loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing manager getting Home Federal, negotiated the latest agreement having Brooks and you may waiting around three data-the mortgage amendment contract, the fresh promissory notice together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is president of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. try the entire partner regarding a restricted relationship, the fresh Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to-do the latest Peacock Ridge construction venture. Between Sep 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Home Government loaned almost $7.cuatro mil into Peacock partnership. All the five operating-system.
At that time, Peacock owed large sums inside accumulated interest and had almost every other debt to the the project. Household Federal recognized a great « work out agreement » where it forgave just about $one hundred,100 of your own focus and you can provided to loan Peacock an additional $50,100. Inturn, Peacock assured to do a good promissory note to possess $150,100000 covered because of the an individual guaranty finalized of the Ramos.
New workout contract was discussed for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. personnel. App. 3d 1612] personal guaranty-that he brought to Brooks for the purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned every three go to this web-site signed data files to Lynn into the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh promissory note given a trademark range for « Ronald J. Ramos, President » of Roentgen/J Co. given that general companion out of Peacock. Ramos signed the brand new document « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. » The personal guarantee integrated the second operative code:
By November 1986, financial difficulties towards endeavor triggered Peacock so you can standard with the Household Government money
« Into the thought of the loan on Association so you can Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you may unconditionally verify and you will hope to spend so you can Association, or anyone who Organization sales me to pay, any indebtedness of Debtor so you’re able to Connection confirmed because of the, or perhaps in in any manner linked to the loan (as well as although not restricted to a lot more improves otherwise financing) and/or notice, and to manage all covenants and plans out-of Debtor contained in this new mention or any safety agreement between Borrower and you may Association. » The new trademark line at the bottom of your own file sent to the newest trademark off « Ronald J. Ramos. » Rather, Ramos signed it he had closed brand new promissory note: « R.J. Ramos, Pres. »
Whenever Peacock defaulted into the latest notice and you can House Government brought match in order to enforce the newest guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor one their signature given that « Pres. » indicated an intention so you can bind only R/J Co. and not himself physically towards warranty. At the intimate of all research, the newest demo legal supplied Family Federal’s motion to possess a brought decision, finishing it had been limited by the fresh new court’s choice during the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a phrase concerning the proceeding posture of the instance. The new trial courtroom directed a verdict against Ramos, finishing you will find zero disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational evidence and you will thinking by itself bound by an earlier Judge of Desire choice. (Get a hold of fundamentally Auto Equity Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a regulating appellate choice, yet not, the new judge are proper from inside the deciding you to no jury matter try demonstrated. As Supreme Legal said during the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « New interpretation off a created instrument, even though it concerns what might securely getting called inquiries off truth [citation], is largely an official function to get exercised according to fundamentally approved canons away from interpretation so that the purposes of new software may be provided feeling. . So it is only an official mode so you can understand a composed device until the brand new interpretation turns on brand new credibility out-of extrinsic facts. » (Id. from the p. 865; select plus Medical Businesses Management, Inc. v. National Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as the activities exhibited absolutely nothing related with no conflicting extrinsic facts (select Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.R.3d 1373]), brand new trial courtroom safely refused to complete the fresh new interpretation of the written guaranty on the jury. (Select Scientific Operations Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, but not, we since reviewing judge consider the evidence and translate the new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional during the p. 891.)
