Household Government Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following demo courtroom brought a verdict in support of plaintiff Domestic Government Deals & Mortgage Relationship (House Federal) out of Ramos’s responsibility toward a personal bank loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing manager to have Home Federal, discussed the newest arrangement having Brooks and you can prepared about three data-the mortgage amendment arrangement, brand new promissory note together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try president of your Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. try the general mate out-of a limited connection, new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), shaped to do the brand new Peacock Ridge structure endeavor. Anywhere between September 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned almost $7.4 mil toward Peacock commitment. Each of the four os.
At that point, Peacock owed ample sums when you look at the accrued loans for bad credit Berkley CO attention together with almost every other obligations concerning your panels. Home Government acknowledged an excellent «exercise contract» in which they forgave all but $a hundred,100 of your notice and wanted to loan Peacock a supplementary $fifty,one hundred thousand. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to perform an excellent promissory notice having $150,000 protected because of the a personal guarantee finalized by the Ramos.
The new work-out agreement was discussed for Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. worker. Application. three dimensional 1612] personal warranty-he brought to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back most of the three signed data to Lynn to your December 18, 1986.fn. step one
Brand new promissory mention offered a signature range for «Ronald J. Ramos, President» from R/J Co. once the standard lover away from Peacock. Ramos closed new file «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The personal guarantee included another operative code:
By the November 1986, financial hardships towards the opportunity caused Peacock to default on House Government fund
«From inside the consideration of one’s financing throughout the Relationship so you can Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you can for any reason guarantee and you will pledge to expend to help you Relationship, otherwise whoever Relationship commands me to shell out, all indebtedness off Debtor to Relationship confirmed by the, or in any way associated with the borrowed funds (in addition to however simply for a lot more advances otherwise money) and/or note, in order to create all the covenants and you will arrangements of Debtor found in brand new notice or one shelter arrangement anywhere between Borrower and Relationship.» The new signature range towards the bottom of one’s document taken to the latest signature off «Ronald J. Ramos.» Rather, Ramos finalized it as he’d signed the promissory mention: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted towards the brand new notice and you can Family Federal lead fit to help you impose the brand new guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor that his trademark because «Pres.» conveyed an intention to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. and never himself individually to the warranty. On personal of all of the research, the trial courtroom supplied House Federal’s actions to possess a directed decision, finishing it had been bound by the court’s choice inside Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We begin with a keyword about the procedural posture of your own circumstances. The brand new trial court brought a decision against Ramos, finishing you will find zero argument in [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you can assuming alone bound by an early Judge from Notice decision. (Come across basically Vehicles Collateral Sales, Inc. v. Advanced Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a regulating appellate choice, although not, the latest court was correct for the determining that zero jury concern try showed. Since Ultimate Judge explained inside Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «The newest translation out of a written tool, even though it pertains to what might properly be named questions of truth [citation], is essentially an official setting is exercised according to the essentially accepted canons away from translation and so the reason for the new device can be given effect. . So it’s only an official setting in order to translate a composed appliance unless of course the latest interpretation converts through to brand new trustworthiness out-of extrinsic research.» (Id. within p. 865; discover and Medical Procedures Government, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, given that events demonstrated nothing associated no contradictory extrinsic research (get a hold of Pacific Gasoline & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A great.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the latest demo judge securely refused to fill in brand new translation of composed guaranty toward jury. (See Scientific Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On top of that, but not, i due to the fact reviewing court take into account the facts and you can interpret the newest guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Scientific Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d on p. 891.)
