House Federal Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the trial judge led a verdict and only plaintiff Home Federal Discounts & Mortgage Connection (Household Government) off Ramos’s liability to the a personal bank loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major mortgage manager having House Federal, negotiated the arrangement that have Brooks and waiting three records-the loan amendment agreement, the latest promissory mention as well as the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. try the general lover from a restricted relationship, the newest Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to-do the new Peacock Ridge build opportunity. Anywhere between September 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned almost $7.4 million with the Peacock partnership. All the four operating system.
At that point, Peacock due reasonable sums inside accrued appeal and had almost every other loans regarding the the project. House Federal approved a « work out contract » where they forgave all but $a hundred,100 of your attract and you may wanted to financing Peacock an additional $fifty,100000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to perform an excellent promissory mention getting $150,000 shielded because of the an individual warranty signed from the Ramos.
The latest work out agreement is actually negotiated for Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. personnel. Software. 3d 1612] personal guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned every about three finalized documents in order to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step one
This new promissory note considering a trademark line having « Ronald J. Ramos, President » out-of Roentgen/J Co. as standard spouse out-of Peacock. Ramos signed brand new file « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The non-public warranty integrated another surgical code:
Of the November 1986, financial hardships to the enterprise triggered Peacock to help you default into the Home Government financing
« In the planning of your own financing regarding the Connection so you’re able to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and for any reason guarantee and you will guarantee to blow in order to Association, or the person who Association purchases us to pay, any and all indebtedness away from Debtor so you can Organization evidenced because of the, or in in any manner linked to the mortgage (along with yet not limited by additional enhances or fund) or perhaps the mention, and to perform all of the covenants and you can arrangements off Debtor contained in the newest mention or people coverage arrangement between Borrower and Relationship. » The signature range towards the bottom of the file delivered to the brand new signature out-of « Ronald J. Ramos. » As an alternative, Ramos closed it he previously closed the brand new promissory note: « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. »
When Peacock defaulted towards the mention and you will Domestic Government brought suit to enforce the new guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor one his signature given that « Pres. » shown an intent in order to join simply R/J Co. and not themselves actually with the guaranty. At close of all evidence, this new demo courtroom offered Household Federal’s actions getting a directed verdict, concluding it had been limited by the fresh new court’s decision for the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We begin with a keyword in regards to the procedural posture of situation. The fresh new demonstration courtroom led a verdict against Ramos, finishing there was no dispute inside the [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you will believing alone bound by an earlier Judge regarding Notice choice. (Come across basically Automobile Security Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a managing appellate decision, yet not, the latest court are correct into the determining one no jury concern try displayed. Due to the fact Best Courtroom told me for the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « The interpretation off a composed appliance, although it involves what might properly be called issues out-of facts [citation], is essentially an official means to-be resolved depending on the essentially accepted canons from translation so the reason for the new tool tends to be considering impression. . So it’s entirely an official setting in order to understand an authored instrument unless the brand new translation turns on the new trustworthiness of extrinsic proof. » (Id. on p. https://paydayloancolorado.net/idaho-springs/ 865; look for together with Scientific Procedures Administration, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the people presented absolutely nothing relevant and no conflicting extrinsic evidence (discover Pacific Gasoline & 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 A beneficial.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the latest demonstration court safely would not fill out the brand new translation of your composed guaranty towards the jury. (Look for Scientific Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional on p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On top of that, however, i as examining court consider the evidence and you will translate the fresh guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 891.)
