Blog

House Federal Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a view after the trial legal directed a verdict in support of plaintiff Household Federal Deals & Loan Organization (Domestic Government) from Ramos’s liability on an unsecured loan guarantee. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to own Household Government, discussed the fresh contract that have Brooks and you will prepared around three data-the borrowed funds amendment agreement, new promissory note in addition to [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos try president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. are the overall lover of a restricted partnership, the Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed to-do the brand new Peacock Ridge design investment. Ranging from September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $eight.cuatro million toward Peacock relationship. All the four os.

When this occurs, Peacock due reasonable figures in the accumulated interest and had most other obligations to the the project. House Federal approved a good “work-out agreement” in which it forgave just about $one hundred,100000 of your own appeal and you will offered to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100. In exchange, Peacock assured to perform a great promissory notice to have $150,100 shielded from the your own guaranty signed because of the Ramos.

Brand new workout contract are negotiated on behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. personnel. Software. 3d 1612] individual warranty-that he taken to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned the about three closed documents in order to Lynn for the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The fresh promissory notice provided a trademark range for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of Roentgen/J Co. once the general spouse from Peacock. Ramos finalized the new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty provided the second medical vocabulary:

Of the November 1986, financial hardships to your investment caused Peacock so you’re able to standard on the Home Government fund

“In the planning of one’s financing from the Association to help you Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you will unconditionally ensure and you may pledge to blow to help you Association, or whoever Association purchases us to shell out, all indebtedness out of Debtor so you can Connection confirmed by, or even in any way about the mortgage (together with although not limited by most improves or funds) or the notice, also to perform every covenants and you may arrangements out of Borrower found in the brand new mention or people safety arrangement anywhere between Borrower and you may Organization.” The latest trademark line at the end of one’s file taken to the fresh new trademark regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he’d signed this new promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted towards the brand new notice and you may House Government produced fit so you can demand this new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the ground one their signature because “Pres.” shown an intent so you’re able to join simply Roentgen/J Co. and never himself physically to the guaranty. At close of all the proof, brand new demo judge provided Domestic Federal’s action having a brought decision, finishing it actually was limited by brand new court’s decision during the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start out with a word in regards to the procedural pose of one’s case. The newest trial legal directed a verdict facing Ramos, finishing you will find no argument in the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you may believing itself limited by an earlier Courtroom out of Attention choice. (Pick fundamentally Vehicle Security Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a regulating appellate choice, however, new legal try right in determining that zero jury concern are showed. Since Best Judge told me for the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “New translation regarding a written instrument, whilst it comes to what can properly feel titled issues of fact [citation], is basically an official form becoming exercised according to the essentially acknowledged canons out of translation so the reason for the latest tool tends to be provided feeling. . So it is solely a judicial mode in order to interpret a composed software except if the brand new translation turns up on the credibility out of extrinsic proof.” (Id. at the p. 865; select and additionally Medical Operations Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because the parties demonstrated little associated without contradictory extrinsic proof (see Pacific Gasoline & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. payday loans Center Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), brand new demonstration courtroom securely refused to fill out the new interpretation of one’s written guarantee toward jury. (Find Scientific Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at the p. 892, fn.4.) While doing so, however, we because the evaluating court consider the proof and you may translate the brand new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional at the p. 891.)