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

Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment after the demo legal directed a decision in support of plaintiff Household Federal Discounts & Mortgage Organization (Domestic Federal) out-of Ramos’s responsibility towards a consumer loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan manager to possess Home Federal, negotiated the contract with Brooks and you can prepared three documents-the loan modification arrangement, the promissory mention and [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos is actually chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. is actually all round mate off a limited partnership, the latest Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), shaped accomplish the Peacock Ridge framework opportunity. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $7.4 mil on the Peacock union. Each one of the four operating-system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed large amounts into the accumulated notice along with most other obligations regarding the the project. Family Government recognized a great « workout agreement » where it forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of notice and you can accessible to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100000. In exchange, Peacock promised to execute a beneficial promissory notice for $150,100000 secured of the an individual guaranty finalized by Ramos.

Brand new work out agreement try discussed on the behalf of Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. staff. App. 3d 1612] individual guarantee-that he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all the around three closed documents so you’re able to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. 1

New promissory notice provided a signature range for « Ronald J. Ramos, President » away from R/J Co. just like the general companion regarding Peacock. Ramos signed new document « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The private guaranty incorporated the next medical words:

Because of the November 1986, financial hardships on opportunity caused Peacock in order to default into House Government loans

« When you look at the believe of financing on Association to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will unconditionally be certain that and promise to pay so you can Relationship, otherwise whomever Connection orders me to pay, all indebtedness out-of Borrower so you can Relationship confirmed by the, or perhaps in in any manner about the loan (and additionally however simply for even more enhances or fund) or even the notice, and perform all the covenants and arrangements from Borrower found in brand new note or people coverage arrangement anywhere between Debtor and you can Organization. » The newest trademark line at the bottom of your own document provided for the newest trademark from « Ronald J. Ramos. » As an alternative, Ramos signed it as he’d finalized this new promissory notice: « R.J. Ramos, Pres. »

Whenever Peacock defaulted on the brand new notice and you will Family Federal lead match to impose the brand new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one to their trademark as « Pres. » indicated a purpose to help you bind just Roentgen/J Co. and never himself yourself into guaranty. At the intimate of all the evidence, new demo legal https://paydayloancolorado.net/fort-lupton/ provided Home Federal’s activity getting a directed verdict, concluding it had been bound by the latest court’s choice when you look at the Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I begin with a keyword regarding procedural posture of your case. The newest demo legal directed a decision up against Ramos, finishing there clearly was zero disagreement in [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational proof and thinking by itself limited by a young Legal of Notice choice. (Discover essentially Car Equity Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a managing appellate decision, however, brand new court are right during the determining one no jury question is displayed. Given that Finest Legal explained in the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « The brand new interpretation from an authored means, even though it involves what might securely feel titled inquiries from facts [citation], is largely an official mode becoming exercised according to basically recognized canons out-of interpretation and so the purposes of this new instrument can be provided impact. . It is therefore exclusively a judicial function to translate an authored device except if new interpretation converts through to the new trustworthiness out-of extrinsic evidence. » (Id. at p. 865; find and additionally Medical Surgery Administration, Inc. v. National Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, while the activities showed nothing related with no conflicting extrinsic research (pick Pacific Gasoline & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A great.L.R.3d 1373]), the brand new trial courtroom safely refused to fill in brand new interpretation of your own created guarantee on jury. (Pick Scientific Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d within p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, yet not, we while the reviewing judge take into account the facts and interpret the fresh new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Medical Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional in the p. 891.)

Tweet