Home Government Coupons & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom adopting the trial court brought a verdict and only plaintiff House Government Offers & Loan Organization (Home Government) from Ramos’s accountability into a consumer loan guarantee. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major mortgage administrator having Household Federal, negotiated this new agreement that have Brooks and waiting around three data-the borrowed funds amendment arrangement, brand new promissory mention and also the [229 Cal

Accused Ramos is actually president of your Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a ca agency. R/J Co. is actually all round companion out of a restricted commitment, brand new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), molded to-do brand new Peacock Ridge structure investment. Between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned nearly $seven.cuatro mil with the Peacock union. Each one of the five operating-system.

At that point, Peacock owed reasonable figures inside accrued interest along with other debt about the the project. Home Government recognized an excellent „exercise contract“ where they forgave just about $a hundred,100 of the attract and you may wanted to loan Peacock a supplementary $50,100. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to perform a promissory mention getting $150,100000 covered of the an individual guarantee finalized from the Ramos.

The newest work-out arrangement are discussed for Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. personnel. App. 3d 1612] private guarantee-that he taken to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every around three closed data so you can Lynn into the December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The fresh new promissory mention offered a trademark line getting „Ronald J. Ramos, President“ out-of R/J Co. once the general partner off Peacock. Ramos closed this new file „Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.“ The non-public warranty integrated the next operative words:

By the November 1986, financial difficulties with the opportunity caused Peacock in order to standard for the Family Government fund

„Within the planning of your mortgage regarding Relationship in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you may unconditionally ensure and you will promise to expend so you’re able to Connection, or whoever Organization commands us to shell out, every indebtedness off Borrower in order to Association evidenced of the, or even in in whatever way regarding the loan (as well as but not simply for a lot more improves or finance) or even the notice, also to manage the covenants and you will agreements out of Debtor contained in the new notice or one cover arrangement anywhere between Debtor and you will Relationship.“ The trademark line towards the bottom of your document sent to the new trademark out-of „Ronald J. Ramos.“ Instead, Ramos signed it he had closed the newest promissory note: „Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.“

When Peacock defaulted towards the new note and you may Family Government brought suit so https://paydayloancolorado.net/orchard-city/ you can impose this new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor one his signature due to the fact „Pres.“ expressed a purpose to help you join merely Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves individually towards the guaranty. Within personal of all evidence, the newest demonstration judge offered House Federal’s action to have a led decision, finishing it was limited by brand new court’s decision in Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We begin with a term regarding the proceeding position of situation. The latest demo legal brought a decision up against Ramos, finishing there is certainly no disagreement inside the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational research and you will thinking in itself bound by an early on Judge regarding Appeal choice. (Come across essentially Automobile Security Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a controlling appellate choice, but not, the fresh new judge was proper during the determining one zero jury question was exhibited. As Best Courtroom told me in Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], „The brand new interpretation away from a written tool, even though it concerns what would securely getting named questions from reality [citation], is essentially an official means to get worked out according to the fundamentally acknowledged canons out of interpretation therefore the purposes of the newest tool tends to be given impact. . So it’s exclusively a judicial means so you’re able to translate a created software unless of course the brand new translation converts up on new credibility regarding extrinsic research.“ (Id. on p. 865; see together with Scientific Procedures Management, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, due to the fact events shown absolutely nothing related no conflicting extrinsic research (get a hold of Pacific Gasoline & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the new demo judge properly refused to fill out the latest interpretation of the composed guarantee into jury. (Get a hold of Scientific Operations Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Simultaneously, but not, i as looking at courtroom consider the evidence and understand this new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d from the p. 891.)