Domestic Government Discounts & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment following trial courtroom brought a verdict and only plaintiff Home Federal Deals & Mortgage Connection (House Federal) off Ramos’s accountability to your a personal loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing officer to possess House Federal, negotiated the latest contract which have Brooks and you can prepared around three data files-the borrowed funds amendment contract, the promissory mention and [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try president of Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. was all round lover from a limited partnership, this new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded doing the latest Peacock Ridge design venture. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Household Government loaned nearly $seven.cuatro billion on the Peacock partnership. Each one of the four os.
At that point, Peacock owed generous sums in accrued attention together with almost every other personal debt concerning the project. Domestic Federal acknowledged an effective “exercise agreement” in which it forgave all but $a hundred,000 of your own interest and accessible to financing Peacock an additional $50,000. Inturn, Peacock assured to perform an excellent promissory mention to possess $150,one hundred thousand covered by your own guarantee closed from the Ramos.
The brand new workout arrangement was negotiated on the part of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. worker. App. three dimensional 1612] private guarantee-he taken to Brooks with regards to acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all three signed documents in order to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The newest promissory note given a signature range to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from Roentgen/J Co. because standard partner off Peacock. Ramos finalized new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty included the following surgical words:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties into the endeavor caused Peacock so you’re able to default with the Domestic Federal fund
“During the planning of mortgage on Organization so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you will for any reason guarantee and you will guarantee to spend in order to Organization, or anyone who Connection orders us to pay, all indebtedness from Borrower so you can Association evidenced by, or even in any way linked to the borrowed funds (as well as yet not limited by more improves or money) or even the notice, in order to do all covenants and you can preparations out-of Borrower present in this new notice or any protection contract ranging from Borrower and Connection.” The fresh new signature line in the bottom of your file taken to the latest trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he had finalized the new promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted to the the latest note and Home Federal lead suit so you can demand the latest guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to their signature once the “Pres.” indicated a purpose so you can bind merely R/J Co. and not himself truly into the guaranty. From the personal of all the facts, the fresh trial legal offered Household Federal’s activity to own a brought verdict, concluding it actually was limited by the brand new court’s decision into the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a keyword regarding the procedural posture of the case. This new trial judge directed a decision facing Ramos, finishing there was no argument within the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and assuming by itself bound by an earlier Court out-of Attention decision. (Discover fundamentally Vehicles Security Sales, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a controlling appellate choice, not, brand new judge try correct in determining you to no jury question is actually presented. While the Finest Court said into the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. https://paydayloancolorado.net/mancos/ 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The new interpretation of a created software, while it relates to what can securely become named inquiries regarding truth [citation], is essentially an official means as resolved depending on the essentially approved canons out-of translation so that the reason for new software may be considering impression. . So it is exclusively an official mode so you can translate a composed tool unless of course new translation transforms on the newest trustworthiness of extrinsic research.” (Id. during the p. 865; discover and Medical Businesses Administration, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since activities shown nothing related no conflicting extrinsic proof (find Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An excellent.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh trial court safely would not fill out the brand new interpretation of the written guaranty for the jury. (Pick Scientific Operations Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d within p. 892, fn.4.) In addition, although not, we once the examining judge check out the research and translate the brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d within p. 891.)
