Blog

Family Federal Deals & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment adopting the demonstration judge directed a verdict and only plaintiff Home Federal Discounts & Loan Association (Household Government) off Ramos’s responsibility toward an unsecured loan warranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major mortgage administrator to possess House Government, discussed new agreement which have Brooks and you can wishing about three files-the borrowed funds amendment agreement, brand new promissory notice while the [229 Cal

Offender Ramos are chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. try the overall mate off a limited commitment, the brand new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), designed to-do the brand new Peacock Ridge build endeavor. Ranging from September 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned almost $eight.cuatro billion into the Peacock commitment. Each one of the four os.

At that point, Peacock due large amounts when you look at the accrued interest along with other loans concerning your panels. Household Federal acknowledged an excellent “work out agreement” where they forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of the appeal and agreed to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,000. In exchange, Peacock promised to do a good promissory note to possess $150,100000 covered by the your own guarantee finalized of the Ramos.

The fresh work-out contract was negotiated on behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. Software. three-dimensional 1612] individual warranty-he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the about three closed documents so you’re able to Lynn toward December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The brand new promissory note considering a trademark line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from R/J Co. just like the standard companion out of Peacock. Ramos closed the document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guaranty included another surgical vocabulary:

By November 1986, financial difficulties for the investment brought about Peacock so you’re able to default into the Family Government money

“Within the idea of your own mortgage on Connection to help you Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and you will for any reason make certain and you may guarantee to spend so you’re able to Relationship, otherwise the person who Organization instructions us to spend, all indebtedness out of Debtor in order to Organization confirmed from the, or perhaps in in whatever way regarding the borrowed funds (together with although not limited by even more improves otherwise finance) or even the notice, and also to carry out all covenants and you may plans off Borrower contained in this new note or any defense agreement ranging from Debtor and you may Relationship.” The new signature line in the bottom of file delivered to the trademark away from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos closed it as he had closed the fresh promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted to your the fresh notice and you may Domestic Federal introduced suit so you’re able to impose brand new guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one to their trademark while the “Pres.” expressed an intention so you’re able to bind merely R/J Co. rather than themselves individually for the warranty. At the intimate of the many evidence, the brand new demo courtroom provided Home Federal’s motion to possess a brought decision, concluding it had been limited by brand new court’s choice when you look at the Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I begin with a phrase about the procedural pose of circumstances. New demonstration legal led a decision against Ramos, concluding there was zero dispute inside the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you can believing by itself limited by a young Legal out of Desire decision. (Find generally Vehicles Equity Sales, Inc. v. Premium Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In the absence of a managing appellate choice, not, this new judge is proper for the deciding you to definitely zero jury concern try demonstrated. Since Supreme Court informed me for the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, https://paydayloancolorado.net/palmer-lake/ 402 P.2d 839], “The new interpretation from a composed tool, while it pertains to what can safely become titled inquiries out-of truth [citation], is essentially an official setting is exercised depending on the basically approved canons out-of interpretation therefore the reason for the newest device could be offered feeling. . Therefore it is solely a judicial setting so you can translate a written device unless of course the translation converts through to this new credibility off extrinsic facts.” (Id. at p. 865; pick plus Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. Federal Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, given that events displayed absolutely nothing related no contradictory extrinsic facts (pick Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An excellent.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the brand new trial legal securely would not submit this new interpretation of created guaranty to the jury. (Discover Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) In addition, however, i just like the looking at court consider the proof and you can interpret brand new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at p. 891.)