Household Government Deals & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view after the trial legal directed a verdict in support of plaintiff Home Federal Deals & Mortgage Relationship (House Government) off Ramos’s liability toward an unsecured loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to own Family Federal, discussed the brand new agreement that have Brooks and wishing about three records-the mortgage modification agreement, the fresh new promissory notice together with [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos are chairman of Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca agency. R/J Co. is actually the entire spouse out of a limited partnership, the fresh Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), designed to complete the fresh Peacock Ridge framework project. Between September 1983 and you will February 1985, plaintiff Household Government loaned almost $eight.cuatro million toward Peacock connection. Each of the four os.

At that time, Peacock due ample figures inside the accrued desire along with almost every other obligations to the the project. Domestic Government acknowledged an excellent “work-out contract” in which they forgave all but $one hundred,100 of your own notice and you will offered to loan Peacock an extra $50,100000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to execute good promissory note getting $150,000 secure of the your own guarantee finalized because of the Ramos.

The fresh workout arrangement was negotiated on the part of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. worker. App. three dimensional 1612] individual installment loans online in Alabama guarantee-which he taken to Brooks for the true purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all the three closed files to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The brand new promissory notice considering a signature range to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. while the standard spouse out of Peacock. Ramos closed the latest file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee incorporated the second operative code:

From the November 1986, financial hardships on project triggered Peacock to standard for the Home Government financing

“Inside the believe of your own mortgage on Organization to help you Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you can unconditionally make sure and vow to expend to Organization, or the person who Relationship orders me to pay, any and all indebtedness regarding Borrower so you’re able to Relationship confirmed by the, or in in whatever way connected with the borrowed funds (plus however simply for extra enhances otherwise money) or the note, and also to do most of the covenants and you can agreements off Borrower found in the new mention otherwise one safety arrangement between Borrower and you will Connection.” The fresh trademark range towards the bottom of your file provided for the new trademark from “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it he had signed brand new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted towards the brand new note and you will Family Federal produced suit so you can impose the newest guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor you to his signature since the “Pres.” shown a purpose so you’re able to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself personally towards the warranty. From the intimate of all facts, the latest demo courtroom supplied Household Federal’s activity for a directed decision, concluding it had been limited by this new court’s choice inside Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start with a phrase towards procedural position of your instance. The brand new demo court brought a decision up against Ramos, concluding discover zero conflict from inside the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you may thinking in itself bound by an early on Court away from Appeal choice. (See fundamentally Auto Security Transformation, Inc. v. Superior Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a regulating appellate decision, but not, the latest court are right for the deciding that zero jury question is showed. Just like the Supreme Judge said inside Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh interpretation of a created instrument, while it relates to what might safely end up being named inquiries out-of fact [citation], is basically a judicial function getting exercised according to fundamentally acknowledged canons away from interpretation and so the purposes of the fresh new device are offered perception. . So it’s only an official setting to help you translate a written appliance unless the fresh new interpretation converts through to the new trustworthiness out of extrinsic facts.” (Id. in the p. 865; come across in addition to Scientific Businesses Management, Inc. v. National Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, given that people displayed absolutely nothing related no conflicting extrinsic proof (look for Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), new trial courtroom safely would not complete the fresh new translation of your own created warranty toward jury. (Discover Medical Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional at the p. 892, fn.4.) While doing so, although not, i given that evaluating legal check out the facts and you will understand brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional at the p. 891.)