Household Federal Savings & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Accused Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment after the trial legal brought a decision in support of plaintiff Home Government Savings & Loan Association (Home Government) out-of Ramos’s accountability on the a consumer loan guarantee. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager to have Home Government, negotiated the arrangement having Brooks and wishing around three records-the loan modification agreement, this new promissory notice therefore the [229 Cal

Accused Ramos was chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a ca agency. R/J Co. is actually the overall lover from a small commitment, this new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed accomplish the latest Peacock Ridge construction opportunity. Between Sep 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $7.4 million to the Peacock partnership. All the four operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed large sums when you look at the accumulated notice together with other financial obligation concerning the your panels. Domestic Government recognized a beneficial “workout agreement” in which it forgave just about $one hundred,100000 of one’s notice and you can provided to financing Peacock an extra $50,000. In exchange, Peacock promised to do a promissory notice for $150,one hundred thousand safeguarded of the an individual guaranty signed because of the Ramos.

The fresh work out arrangement was negotiated on behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. personnel. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual warranty-he taken to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every three closed data cash loans in Cortez CO so you can Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The fresh promissory mention considering a signature range getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off R/J Co. just like the standard companion of Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh new file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private warranty integrated the next surgical code:

By November 1986, financial hardships towards endeavor triggered Peacock to help you standard toward Family Government financing

“During the thought of the loan on the Connection in order to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you can unconditionally be certain that and promise to pay so you can Relationship, otherwise whomever Connection requests us to pay, every indebtedness out of Borrower to help you Organization confirmed by the, or perhaps in in any manner related to the borrowed funds (in addition to not limited by extra advances or financing) or the note, also to manage most of the covenants and you may plans out-of Borrower found in the fresh notice otherwise people safety agreement ranging from Debtor and you can Organization.” The fresh new trademark line towards the bottom of one’s document delivered to new trademark off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he had closed the newest promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted on the new notice and you can Household Federal introduced suit to help you demand the latest guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor one their trademark due to the fact “Pres.” shown an intention to help you bind just Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves physically for the warranty. From the close of all of the facts, the brand new demonstration courtroom provided Household Federal’s activity to possess a directed decision, concluding it actually was bound by the brand new court’s choice in Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We focus on a keyword concerning the procedural present of the case. The fresh new demonstration legal led a decision up against Ramos, concluding there was zero disagreement inside [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you can thinking alone bound by a young Court regarding Interest choice. (See basically Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a regulating appellate choice, but not, the legal try proper in determining you to definitely zero jury question is actually exhibited. As Ultimate Legal informed me during the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The newest interpretation away from a created software, even though it pertains to what can securely become called issues off truth [citation], is largely a judicial mode become worked out according to generally approved canons of translation so that the purposes of new means tends to be given impression. . It is therefore only an official form to understand a composed instrument except if this new translation transforms upon the newest dependability off extrinsic proof.” (Id. during the p. 865; get a hold of plus Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as the people demonstrated little associated no conflicting extrinsic facts (pick Pacific Gasoline & Elizabeth. 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]), this new trial legal properly refused to fill out the brand new translation of composed warranty on jury. (Find Scientific Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d during the p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, yet not, we since the looking at legal look at the evidence and you can interpret this new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d on p. 891.)