Household Federal Discounts & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment after the demonstration courtroom led a verdict in favor of plaintiff Domestic Government Deals & Financing Relationship (Family Government) out-of Ramos’s liability on a personal bank loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major financing officer to possess House Federal, negotiated the fresh agreement which have Brooks and you can waiting three data files-the loan modification arrangement, the latest promissory mention and also the [229 Cal

Offender Ramos is president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. try the general spouse away from a restricted partnership, the newest Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), molded to accomplish the newest Peacock Ridge design project. Ranging from September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $7.cuatro million into the Peacock connection. All the four os.

At that time, Peacock due large sums during the accrued attract along with almost every other debt to the your panels. Home Government acknowledged an excellent “work out contract” in which it forgave just about $100,000 of the interest and you can agreed to loan Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock assured to do good promissory notice to have $150,000 secure from the your own warranty finalized because of the Ramos.

The newest work out arrangement is discussed on the part of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. worker. Software. three dimensional 1612] personal warranty-he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all the about three finalized records so you’re able to Lynn on the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The latest promissory notice provided a trademark line to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from R/J Co. as the standard spouse away from Peacock. Ramos finalized new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guaranty provided the following surgical language:

By the November 1986, financial hardships on the venture brought about Peacock to default for the House Federal financing

“Inside planning of financing about Organization to help you Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you may unconditionally make certain and you will promise to invest in order to Organization, or whomever Relationship sales me to spend, all indebtedness out of Borrower to help you Relationship evidenced of the, or in in any manner pertaining to the borrowed funds (as well as not limited by a lot more enhances or financing) or even the mention, also to would most of the covenants and you may agreements out-of Borrower within the latest note otherwise one shelter agreement anywhere between Debtor and you can Relationship.” The new trademark line at the end of your own document taken to brand new trademark out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos finalized it as he’d signed the latest promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted into new mention and you may Family Federal put suit to demand the latest guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his signature due to the fact “Pres.” indicated an intent so you can bind only Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves directly on guaranty. On intimate of all proof, the fresh demonstration courtroom offered Household Federal’s action to have a led decision, concluding it absolutely was bound by the new court’s decision inside Sebastian Around the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I begin with a keyword concerning procedural posture of instance. The new trial judge led a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there’s no dispute from inside the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you can thinking itself bound by a young Courtroom from Desire decision. (Get a hold of essentially Vehicle Security Transformation, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a regulating appellate choice, although not, the fresh new judge was right in the choosing you to no jury concern is actually displayed. Just like the Finest Legal explained within the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The brand new interpretation away from a written software, whilst it pertains to what can securely become named concerns of fact [citation], is essentially an official setting is worked out depending on the essentially approved canons out of translation therefore, the purposes of this new means is provided feeling. . So it’s exclusively a judicial form so you’re able to interpret a created tool unless the newest translation converts on the fresh trustworthiness regarding extrinsic facts.” (Id. in the p. 865; select in addition to Medical Operations Management, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as the parties displayed absolutely nothing related no conflicting extrinsic evidence (look for Pacific Energy & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An effective.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the fresh new trial legal properly would not fill in new loans in Genoa for people with bad credit interpretation of the written guarantee toward jury. (Find Scientific Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional in the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Concurrently, although not, we given that evaluating legal look at the research and you can interpret the fresh guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at p. 891.)