Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the trial court brought a decision in support of plaintiff Domestic Government Savings & Mortgage Organization (Household Government) away from Ramos’s liability for the a personal loan places Durango loan guarantee. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing administrator to possess House Federal, negotiated the fresh agreement that have Brooks and you can waiting about three files-the loan modification arrangement, the new promissory notice additionally the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca firm. R/J Co. was the overall partner away from a restricted relationship, the brand new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), molded accomplish the newest Peacock Ridge design investment. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned nearly $seven.4 billion for the Peacock relationship. All the four operating system.
When this occurs, Peacock due nice sums from inside the accumulated desire and had most other loans in connection with your panels. Household Federal approved a great “work out arrangement” where it forgave just about $100,one hundred thousand of your appeal and you may provided to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $50,100. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to perform a great promissory notice to possess $150,100000 secured by your own guaranty closed by the Ramos.
The brand new exercise contract is discussed on behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. worker. App. 3d 1612] private warranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned the three closed files so you’re able to Lynn to your December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh new promissory mention provided a signature range getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of Roentgen/J Co. because the standard companion off Peacock. Ramos finalized the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty provided the following surgical code:
Because of the November 1986, financial hardships towards the enterprise caused Peacock in order to default towards the Domestic Federal money
“Within the said of loan on Organization in order to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and unconditionally be sure and promise to expend in order to Organization, or whoever Relationship commands me to pay, any indebtedness of Borrower to help you Organization confirmed by the, or perhaps in any way related to the borrowed funds (together with however simply for a lot more enhances or financing) and/or note, and carry out most of the covenants and you may arrangements out of Debtor within new mention otherwise one protection arrangement between Borrower and you can Association.” New trademark range at the bottom of the file delivered to this new trademark out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos finalized it as he’d signed the fresh promissory mention: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted with the the fresh new note and Home Government delivered match to enforce the brand new warranty, Ramos defended on the ground one to their trademark just like the “Pres.” conveyed a purpose to bind merely R/J Co. and not themselves directly to the guaranty. At the intimate of all research, the fresh demo courtroom supplied Home Federal’s action to have a led verdict, finishing it actually was bound by new court’s choice for the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start off with a word regarding procedural pose of your circumstances. Brand new trial legal directed a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there’s zero dispute in the [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you can thinking alone bound by an early Judge away from Interest choice. (See fundamentally Vehicles Equity Conversion process, Inc. v. Superior Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In the absence of a managing appellate decision, but not, the fresh new courtroom try best inside determining one no jury question was presented. Because Best Court explained when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation regarding a written instrument, even though it involves what would properly end up being called inquiries regarding reality [citation], is essentially a judicial form to be resolved according to the generally accepted canons off interpretation and so the reason for the latest device is generally offered feeling. . It is therefore only an official mode to help you translate a created appliance except if the fresh new translation turns abreast of the brand new dependability from extrinsic evidence.” (Id. at p. 865; discover along with Scientific Businesses Government, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because activities demonstrated little relevant with no conflicting extrinsic research (see Pacific Gas & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A great.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the newest demonstration court safely refused to submit the newest translation of authored guarantee on jury. (Get a hold of Scientific Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.4.) Concurrently, although not, we while the reviewing judge think about the proof and interpret this new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Medical Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at the p. 891.)
