Household Government Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment adopting the demonstration court brought a decision and only plaintiff Family Federal Deals & Loan Relationship (Home Federal) out-of Ramos’s responsibility towards the a consumer loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan administrator to own Home Government, negotiated the contract with Brooks and you can prepared around three files-the mortgage modification contract, the latest promissory mention additionally the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos are chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. try the overall companion off a small connection, the fresh Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed accomplish brand new Peacock Ridge framework project. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $7.cuatro mil on Peacock partnership. Each one of the five operating-system.
At that time, Peacock due good sums inside accumulated notice along with other debt concerning the project. Household Government acknowledged a good “work-out contract” in which they forgave all but $100,100000 of the focus and provided to loan Peacock an extra $50,one hundred thousand. Inturn, Peacock promised to do an effective promissory notice for $150,100 secure from the a personal warranty finalized by Ramos.
The brand new work out agreement are discussed on the behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. staff. Software. three dimensional 1612] private warranty-that he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every about three signed data files so you’re able to Lynn towards December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh new promissory mention provided a trademark line to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. since the standard lover of Peacock. Ramos signed the latest document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guaranty integrated next surgical vocabulary:
By November 1986, financial hardships to your investment caused Peacock in order to default on the Home Government finance
“When you look at the planning of your own loan about Connection to help you Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and for any reason be sure and you may hope to invest so you can Association, or whoever Relationship commands me to shell out, any indebtedness out of Debtor to help you Organization evidenced by the, or in any way regarding the loan (and additionally but not simply for most improves or finance) or even the notice, in order to create every covenants and you may agreements of Debtor present in the fresh new mention or one safeguards contract between Debtor and Relationship.” The newest signature range in the bottom of document delivered to the fresh new signature from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it he’d closed the fresh promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted to the new mention and you will Household Government delivered fit so you can impose the fresh warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to definitely their trademark as the “Pres.” expressed an intent to help you bind merely R/J Co. and never themselves physically towards guaranty. Within personal of all of the facts, the new trial legal offered Family Federal’s actions to own a led decision, finishing it had been bound by the court’s choice inside the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I begin with a keyword towards procedural posture of one’s instance. This new demo court brought a verdict facing Ramos, finishing there can be no conflict during the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you can trusting in itself limited by an early Judge regarding Appeal choice. (Look for basically Car Equity Sales, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a regulating appellate decision, although not, the court are right inside the deciding one zero jury question are shown. Since the Finest Judge told me in the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The interpretation off a created software, while it comes to what would securely be entitled concerns regarding reality [citation], is essentially a judicial setting are worked out according to generally recognized canons out of interpretation therefore the purposes of the appliance can be provided impression. . Therefore it is solely a judicial mode to help you translate a created software unless the translation transforms through to the newest credibility regarding extrinsic facts.” (Id. from the p. 865; get a hold of and Scientific Businesses Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. payday loans Gunbarrel Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because people showed absolutely nothing relevant and no conflicting extrinsic proof (pick Pacific Gas & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A good.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the fresh new demonstration judge properly refused to fill in the fresh new translation of your own composed warranty to your jury. (See Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Simultaneously, however, i as examining court check out the evidence and you can interpret the new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional within p. 891.)