Family Federal Deals & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment following trial judge directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Household Government Deals & Mortgage Connection (House Federal) of Ramos’s liability toward an unsecured loan guarantee. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing administrator to possess House Federal, negotiated this new agreement with Brooks and you can wishing three data files-the mortgage modification arrangement, the brand new promissory mention while the [229 Cal

Accused Ramos was president of your Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca business. R/J Co. is actually the entire companion of a limited connection, new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded to complete the latest Peacock Ridge structure endeavor. Between September 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Federal loaned almost $eight.4 mil to the Peacock union. Each of the four os.

At that point, Peacock owed generous amounts when you look at the accrued notice and had almost every other debt concerning the project. Household Federal recognized a « work out agreement » where they forgave just about $one hundred,100 of one’s attention and agreed to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to perform an excellent promissory note for $150,100 protected by the your own warranty signed of the Ramos.

Brand new work-out contract are negotiated with respect to Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. staff member. Software. three-dimensional 1612] private guaranty-which he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all of the three closed records so you’re able to Lynn for the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

This new promissory mention given a trademark range for « Ronald J. Ramos, President » off R/J Co. since the general mate away from Peacock. Ramos closed the fresh new file « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The private warranty incorporated the following operative vocabulary:

By the November 1986, financial difficulties towards opportunity brought about Peacock to help you default on the House Government fund

« Within the consideration of your own mortgage regarding Organization in order to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and for any reason guarantee and you can vow to spend in order to Association, otherwise anyone who Relationship instructions me to shell out, any and all indebtedness regarding Debtor to Association evidenced by the, or perhaps in in any manner associated with the loan (as well as yet not limited by more improves otherwise finance) or perhaps the mention, and also to would most of the covenants and you may arrangements away from Borrower present in the new note or any protection contract between Debtor and you will Organization. » The brand new signature range at the end of one’s document taken to this new trademark out of « Ronald J. Ramos. » As an alternative, Ramos closed it he previously finalized the latest promissory notice: « R.J. Ramos, Pres. »

When Peacock defaulted on the the newest mention and Domestic Federal lead fit in order to demand this new guaranty, Ramos defended on the ground one to his trademark due to the fact « Pres. » expressed an intention to help you bind simply R/J Co. rather than himself myself into the warranty. During the personal of all proof, the fresh new trial court offered Home Federal’s motion having a directed decision, finishing it was limited by brand new court’s decision in Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I focus on a term concerning proceeding present of circumstances. The fresh new demonstration court brought a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there’s zero conflict inside [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you can trusting alone limited by an early on Legal away from Focus decision. (See essentially Auto Collateral Sales, Inc. v. Advanced Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a managing appellate decision, but not, the court is right inside the choosing one to no jury matter are exhibited. Since the Best Courtroom informed me in the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « Brand new translation out of a composed tool, even though it relates to what can properly getting called issues regarding facts [citation], is essentially a judicial function to get exercised with regards to the fundamentally accepted canons regarding translation therefore the reason for the brand new tool are provided perception. . It is therefore only a judicial setting so you can interpret a written appliance unless of course the newest interpretation turns through to the trustworthiness Canon City loans out-of extrinsic proof. » (Id. during the p. 865; discover and Medical Functions Management, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, given that functions demonstrated nothing relevant with no conflicting extrinsic proof (see Pacific Energy & 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 A great.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the new demonstration judge securely would not fill in the latest translation of created warranty into jury. (Get a hold of Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d at p. 892, fn.cuatro.) At the same time, not, i as the examining court check out the proof and you can interpret the brand new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at the p. 891.)

Tweet