Household Government Savings & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the trial courtroom brought a verdict in favor of plaintiff Household Federal Coupons & Financing Relationship (Household Federal) regarding Ramos’s responsibility with the a personal bank loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer for Domestic Federal, discussed brand new arrangement which have Brooks and you will waiting about three documents-the mortgage modification arrangement, this new promissory mention as well as the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is president of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california company. R/J Co. are all round mate away from a finite connection, the fresh new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed accomplish the fresh new Peacock Ridge design endeavor. Between September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Home Government loaned almost $7.4 mil to the Peacock commitment. All the five os.
At that point, Peacock owed reasonable amounts inside accumulated interest and had almost every other obligations in connection with your panels. Home Federal approved a great “work-out agreement” where they forgave all but $100,one hundred thousand of the focus and you may wanted to loan Peacock an extra $50,100. Inturn, Peacock promised to execute a good promissory mention having $150,100 secure by an individual warranty finalized by the Ramos.
The new work-out agreement is discussed on the part of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. worker. App. three-dimensional 1612] personal guarantee-he taken to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned the around three closed documents to Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The latest promissory mention considering a trademark line having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of R/J Co. due to the fact general mate away from Peacock. Ramos signed the latest document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guaranty incorporated the second operative code:
From the November 1986, financial hardships towards venture triggered Peacock in order loans in Pagosa Springs to default into the House Government loans
“Inside said of your financing throughout the Relationship so you’re able to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), seriously and you will for any reason make certain and you may vow to blow to Connection, otherwise the person who Association commands us to spend, any and all indebtedness out-of Borrower to Association evidenced by the, or perhaps in in any manner regarding the mortgage (also although not limited by more advances or funds) or even the mention, in order to create all the covenants and you may agreements off Borrower found in the mention otherwise any cover contract ranging from Debtor and Connection.” Brand new trademark range towards the bottom of the file taken to this new trademark off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he had closed this new promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted with the the fresh notice and Family Government lead match to help you impose the latest guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor that their trademark since “Pres.” expressed an intent so you’re able to join simply R/J Co. and not himself privately toward guarantee. At romantic of all of the proof, the new demo courtroom provided Home Federal’s action to own a led decision, finishing it had been limited by brand new court’s choice inside the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I focus on a phrase towards procedural posture of instance. The fresh new trial legal brought a decision facing Ramos, finishing there’s zero dispute in [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you can believing itself bound by an early on Court of Attention choice. (Look for basically Vehicles Guarantee Conversion, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a controlling appellate choice, however, the new courtroom is proper into the choosing you to no jury concern is shown. Due to the fact Finest Court informed me within the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The newest interpretation off a created software, whilst it relates to what would securely getting titled questions from fact [citation], is essentially an official means are resolved according to the basically recognized canons of translation so that the reason for the instrument is considering feeling. . It is therefore solely a judicial means in order to understand an authored appliance except if brand new interpretation converts abreast of the trustworthiness out-of extrinsic research.” (Id. at p. 865; find along with Scientific Surgery Management, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as events exhibited nothing associated with no conflicting extrinsic evidence (see Pacific Fuel & 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 An effective.L.R.3d 1373]), the newest demo court securely would not fill in this new interpretation of your composed guarantee towards the jury. (Select Scientific Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, however, i as the looking at courtroom look at the evidence and you can translate brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Scientific Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional on p. 891.)