Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view after the trial courtroom led a decision in favor of plaintiff House Government Discounts & Mortgage Association (Household Federal) off Ramos’s liability to the a personal loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan administrator for Home Federal, discussed the new agreement having Brooks and you will wishing about three data files-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, the latest promissory notice plus the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. are the overall partner out of a restricted relationship, the latest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), shaped to complete the fresh new Peacock Ridge design investment. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned nearly $7.4 mil into the Peacock partnership. Each one of the four operating-system.
At that point, Peacock owed good amounts within the accrued interest along with most other loans concerning your panels. Home Government approved an excellent “work-out contract” where it forgave just about $100,100000 of your own attention and you will provided to loan Peacock an extra $50,000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to execute an effective promissory notice to own $150,100 shielded by the your own warranty closed because of the Ramos.
Brand new exercise arrangement are negotiated for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. staff. Software payday loans La Junta Gardens. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-which he taken to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all the around three signed data files so you can Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. 1
This new promissory note provided a trademark range getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding Roentgen/J Co. just like the standard mate out-of Peacock. Ramos finalized the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty included the following operative vocabulary:
By November 1986, financial difficulties towards the opportunity brought about Peacock so you can default on the House Government fund
“Into the believe of the mortgage from the Association in order to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you can unconditionally make sure and guarantee to spend to Organization, otherwise the person who Connection orders me to spend, any indebtedness away from Debtor so you can Connection evidenced from the, or in in any manner pertaining to the mortgage (and although not limited by extra improves or money) or even the notice, and create every covenants and plans out of Debtor found in the brand new mention otherwise any coverage agreement between Debtor and you can Connection.” The new trademark line at the bottom of your file taken to the newest trademark off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos closed it he had finalized new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted on the latest notice and you may House Government introduced suit to enforce the newest warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor that their trademark as “Pres.” shown a purpose to join just R/J Co. and not himself myself with the warranty. From the romantic of all the proof, brand new demonstration courtroom offered Home Federal’s action getting a led decision, finishing it absolutely was limited by the fresh new court’s decision in the Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a word concerning the proceeding posture of one’s instance. The newest demonstration courtroom led a decision facing Ramos, concluding there clearly was no dispute during the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you will assuming alone bound by an earlier Legal regarding Attention choice. (Come across generally Vehicles Security Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a controlling appellate choice, yet not, the legal is right inside determining you to definitely zero jury question is demonstrated. Since Supreme Judge said in the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The latest translation from a composed means, while it concerns what would securely become called inquiries out of truth [citation], is basically an official form are resolved with respect to the basically accepted canons of translation therefore the purposes of the newest instrument is offered perception. . Making it entirely an official setting to help you interpret a written tool until this new translation converts through to this new dependability out of extrinsic facts.” (Id. on p. 865; find as well as Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, once the people demonstrated nothing associated no contradictory extrinsic evidence (see Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), new trial legal safely would not complete the latest translation of created warranty on jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, although not, i just like the looking at court take into account the facts and you may translate the latest guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional within p. 891.)
Be First to Comment