Family Government Discounts & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view pursuing the trial legal led a verdict in support of plaintiff Household Government Coupons & Mortgage Association (Family Government) of Ramos’s accountability on a personal bank loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer to have Household Government, negotiated brand new contract that have Brooks and you may waiting around three data files-the mortgage amendment contract, brand new promissory notice together with [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a ca organization. R/J Co. try the general partner out of a restricted commitment, new Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), molded to-do this new Peacock Ridge build enterprise. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $7.4 million to your Peacock commitment. Each of loans in Morgan Heights the four os.
At that point, Peacock owed good-sized sums during the accumulated appeal and had other debt regarding the the project. Domestic Government approved a great “work out agreement” in which they forgave just about $a hundred,one hundred thousand of interest and you can offered to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock promised to perform good promissory note for $150,one hundred thousand secure from the your own guarantee finalized by Ramos.
The new exercise arrangement was negotiated on the behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. employee. Software. 3d 1612] personal guaranty-he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every around three signed documents so you can Lynn with the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The new promissory mention provided a signature line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off Roentgen/J Co. just like the general partner away from Peacock. Ramos closed new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guarantee integrated the next operative code:
Of the November 1986, financial hardships into opportunity caused Peacock in order to standard for the Household Government money
“From inside the thought of loan in the Organization in order to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and unconditionally be certain that and you can pledge to pay to Organization, or whoever Organization instructions me to shell out, all indebtedness from Debtor in order to Relationship evidenced by, or perhaps in in whatever way pertaining to the mortgage (plus however limited to even more improves or funds) or even the note, in order to carry out all the covenants and you may arrangements from Borrower found in brand new notice or one coverage contract between Debtor and Relationship.” The latest trademark range at the end of one’s document delivered to the fresh trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos finalized it he previously closed the new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted to the the latest notice and Domestic Federal brought match to help you demand the guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his signature given that “Pres.” indicated a purpose to help you bind just Roentgen/J Co. and never himself individually towards the guarantee. From the romantic of the many research, the latest trial judge provided Domestic Federal’s actions getting a led verdict, concluding it actually was limited by brand new court’s decision from inside the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We focus on a phrase in regards to the proceeding pose of your own case. The latest demonstration courtroom brought a verdict against Ramos, finishing there clearly was no disagreement for the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you will thinking itself bound by an earlier Courtroom out of Desire decision. (Discover essentially Car Security Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a regulating appellate decision, yet not, the latest legal is right into the deciding you to no jury question try exhibited. As Ultimate Legal told me in the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “This new interpretation from a written instrument, whilst it relates to what can properly be named inquiries away from reality [citation], is essentially a judicial means become resolved depending on the essentially recognized canons out-of translation so the reason for the fresh device could be provided impression. . It is therefore exclusively a judicial mode in order to interpret a created software except if the fresh translation transforms up on the new dependability out of extrinsic research.” (Id. on p. 865; find as well as Medical Operations Management, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because the people exhibited nothing relevant and no contradictory extrinsic evidence (pick Pacific Gasoline & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An effective.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the demo judge properly would not complete the new translation of your own composed warranty on the jury. (Look for Scientific Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 892, fn.4.) While doing so, but not, we since looking at courtroom consider the proof and you may translate the guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Medical Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d within p. 891.)
