Domestic Government Coupons & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom adopting the demo court directed a verdict in support of plaintiff Family Government Savings & Loan Connection (Home Federal) of Ramos’s accountability for the a consumer loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager to own Household Government, discussed the newest arrangement which have Brooks and you may wishing about three data-the loan modification contract, the new promissory mention together with [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is actually president of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. is the entire mate regarding a restricted partnership, this new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), formed to accomplish new Peacock Ridge build opportunity. Between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned almost $seven.cuatro mil into the Peacock relationship. All the five operating system.
At that time, Peacock due nice sums in the accrued notice along with almost every other loans regarding the the project. Home Government approved a good “work out agreement” in which it forgave just about $a hundred,100000 of one’s appeal and you may provided to financing Peacock an additional $fifty,000. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to do a beneficial promissory mention to have $150,100 covered by an individual warranty closed of the Ramos.
The workout agreement is actually discussed on the behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. personnel. Application. three-dimensional 1612] private warranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every about three closed records so you’re able to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
New promissory note given a signature range to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of R/J Co. as the general spouse away from Peacock. Ramos closed the brand new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty integrated the next medical words:
From the November 1986, financial hardships towards opportunity caused Peacock so you’re able to standard on Household Federal funds
“Into the said of mortgage throughout the Relationship so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and for any reason guarantee and guarantee to invest so you can Relationship, otherwise the person who Connection orders me to spend, every indebtedness away from Debtor so you’re able to Relationship confirmed by the, or perhaps in in any manner linked to the mortgage (including not restricted to more improves or fund) or the mention, also to manage most of the covenants and preparations off Borrower found in the brand new notice or any shelter agreement anywhere between Borrower and you can Relationship.” The trademark range in the bottom of your own file sent to the signature off “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos closed it he’d finalized the newest promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted to the the fresh new note and you will Household Federal delivered suit to enforce the latest warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his signature because “Pres.” indicated an intent so you’re able to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves in person into guarantee. On personal of the many proof, the latest trial court supplied House Federal’s activity for a led verdict, finishing it actually was bound by brand new court’s decision inside the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a keyword regarding procedural position of your own case. This new demo judge directed a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there’s zero disagreement inside the [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and trusting by itself limited by an earlier Courtroom away from Notice decision. (Look for generally cash loans Indian Hills CO Car Collateral Transformation, Inc. v. Advanced Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a managing appellate choice, although not, this new courtroom try right when you look at the choosing that no jury matter is shown. Since Finest Court told me in Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The translation from a written tool, whilst it concerns what can securely feel called issues regarding truth [citation], is largely an official mode become resolved according to the fundamentally approved canons away from interpretation therefore the reason for this new software could be given impact. . It is therefore entirely a judicial form to interpret a composed instrument unless of course this new interpretation converts up on the new dependability from extrinsic evidence.” (Id. in the p. 865; find and Medical Procedures Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, just like the activities shown little related with no conflicting extrinsic proof (see Pacific Gasoline & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A great.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the fresh demonstration court properly would not complete the brand new interpretation of your written guaranty to your jury. (See Scientific Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 892, fn.cuatro.) At exactly the same time, not, we while the looking at judge think about the evidence and you may interpret brand new guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 891.)
