Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom after the trial judge led a verdict and only plaintiff Household Government Savings & Mortgage Association (Family Federal) of Ramos’s responsibility into the a personal loan guaranty. payday loans Campo We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to have House Government, discussed the arrangement which have Brooks and you may wishing around three data-the loan modification contract, new promissory mention and the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try chairman of one’s Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california company. R/J Co. are the entire partner out of a small union, the fresh new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded to complete new Peacock Ridge build opportunity. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you will February 1985, plaintiff Family Government loaned almost $eight.cuatro mil towards Peacock union. Each of the four os.
When this occurs, Peacock due substantial figures inside the accrued attention together with other personal debt about the your panels. Domestic Government approved an excellent “work out contract” where they forgave just about $one hundred,100 of your desire and provided to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,100. Reciprocally, Peacock assured to perform a promissory mention to possess $150,100000 secured by a personal guarantee signed of the Ramos.
The new work out contract is negotiated for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. employee. Software. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all the three signed records to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The newest promissory note provided a signature line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of R/J Co. since the standard spouse out of Peacock. Ramos signed the newest document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty incorporated the following medical vocabulary:
Because of the November 1986, financial difficulties into the enterprise caused Peacock so you’re able to default towards the Domestic Government financing
“During the thought of your own mortgage from the Connection so you can Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will for any reason make certain and guarantee to pay in order to Association, otherwise the person who Connection sales us to shell out, every indebtedness from Debtor in order to Connection confirmed because of the, or in in whatever way connected with the borrowed funds (as well as however simply for a lot more advances or financing) or the note, in order to manage every covenants and preparations of Debtor found in the newest mention otherwise one protection agreement ranging from Borrower and Organization.” The newest trademark range at the end of your document sent to the fresh new trademark regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos finalized it as he had signed brand new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted on brand new note and you will Home Government delivered fit to demand new guaranty, Ramos defended on the ground that his signature since “Pres.” expressed a purpose to help you join simply R/J Co. rather than themselves in person into the guarantee. At intimate of all the evidence, the brand new demonstration court provided Household Federal’s action to possess a brought decision, concluding it actually was bound by brand new court’s choice inside the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a phrase concerning the procedural position of your own instance. This new demonstration courtroom directed a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there can be zero disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you can believing alone limited by an early on Legal out-of Attract choice. (See essentially Vehicle Security Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a regulating appellate choice, not, the new judge is proper in deciding you to no jury question try showed. Because Ultimate Courtroom told me into the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The latest interpretation of an authored device, although it relates to what can securely getting entitled questions out-of truth [citation], is essentially an official means becoming resolved depending on the basically recognized canons off translation therefore the reason for new tool can be provided impact. . Therefore it is solely an official function in order to translate a written device except if the translation transforms abreast of the credibility of extrinsic research.” (Id. at p. 865; pick in addition to Medical Operations Management, Inc. v. National Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as functions demonstrated little related and no conflicting extrinsic evidence (look for Pacific Fuel & E. Co. v. Grams.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.R.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh demonstration judge properly would not fill in the fresh new interpretation of your own created guarantee for the jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) On top of that, although not, we as evaluating legal look at the proof and you may understand brand new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at the p. 866; Medical Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional in the p. 891.)
Be First to Comment