Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the demo courtroom brought a verdict in support of plaintiff Domestic Federal Discounts & Mortgage Relationship (Home Government) from Ramos’s liability on the an unsecured loan guarantee. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing officer getting Home Federal, discussed the agreement that have Brooks and waiting around three documents-the loan modification contract, brand new promissory note together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos was chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. is actually the overall companion out of a limited commitment, the fresh new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), formed to do the newest Peacock Ridge build venture. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned nearly $eight.4 mil to the Peacock connection. All the five operating-system.
When this occurs, Peacock due large figures within the accrued desire along with almost every other obligations to the the project. Domestic Federal approved a “workout agreement” where it forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of your own appeal and accessible to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock guaranteed to execute an excellent promissory mention to possess $150,100 secured from the an individual warranty finalized of the Ramos.
This new work out arrangement try negotiated on behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. worker. Software. 3d 1612] private guaranty-that he brought to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all of the around three finalized data so you can Lynn toward December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The newest promissory notice offered a signature range for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. because general companion of Peacock. Ramos signed the new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty provided the next operative code:
From the November 1986, financial difficulties into project brought about Peacock in order to default into the Family Federal fund
“Within the idea of your own loan regarding Organization to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), seriously and you may for any reason ensure and you can promise to expend in order to Connection, or whomever Connection purchases me to shell out, all indebtedness out of Debtor to help you Organization confirmed by the, or in any way regarding the loan (and additionally not restricted to extra enhances or money) or perhaps the note, and would the covenants and preparations from Debtor found in new note otherwise people cover contract ranging from Debtor and you may Relationship.” The fresh signature range at americash loans Fort Morgan the end of your document sent to the fresh trademark from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it he had closed the brand new promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted on brand new note and you can Family Federal put fit to demand brand new guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor one their signature just like the “Pres.” indicated an intent so you’re able to join only R/J Co. and not himself directly toward warranty. During the close of the many facts, the brand new trial legal granted Family Federal’s actions to own a directed verdict, concluding it absolutely was bound by the court’s decision in the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a keyword concerning procedural pose of your own circumstances. New demonstration judge directed a verdict against Ramos, concluding there is certainly zero dispute in the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational research and you will trusting by itself bound by an early on Courtroom out-of Appeal choice. (Look for fundamentally Automobile Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a managing appellate decision, not, the fresh courtroom was best inside the determining that zero jury question try displayed. As Ultimate Judge informed me in Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh interpretation out-of a written appliance, even though it involves what would properly be titled concerns of fact [citation], is essentially an official means getting exercised with respect to the essentially acknowledged canons out-of interpretation therefore the purposes of the fresh appliance are given impact. . So it is only a judicial mode to interpret a created device unless of course the latest translation turns upon new credibility out of extrinsic research.” (Id. on p. 865; come across plus Scientific Operations Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since people exhibited nothing associated without contradictory extrinsic evidence (discover Pacific Gas & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An effective.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the brand new trial judge safely would not fill out the latest interpretation of one’s written guaranty on the jury. (Look for Scientific Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d in the p. 892, fn.4.) At exactly the same time, yet not, we while the looking at judge look at the facts and translate this new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional in the p. 891.)
