Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a view following demonstration court led a decision in favor of plaintiff Family Federal Savings & Loan Relationship (Home Government) out of Ramos’s accountability towards a personal bank loan guarantee. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer to possess Home Government, negotiated the fresh new arrangement having Brooks and you can prepared around three data files-the borrowed funds modification agreement, the promissory mention as well as the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca corporation. R/J Co. is the general companion away from Lincoln Park loans a restricted connection, brand new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), shaped accomplish the newest Peacock Ridge design endeavor. Between Sep 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned nearly $eight.cuatro billion to your Peacock union. All the five os.
At that time, Peacock owed ample sums in accumulated notice along with most other personal debt in connection with the project. House Government accepted a beneficial „workout agreement” in which they forgave just about $100,one hundred thousand of desire and you may agreed to financing Peacock an extra $fifty,100000. Inturn, Peacock promised to do good promissory mention to possess $150,100000 protected by an individual warranty closed because of the Ramos.
Brand new work out arrangement is actually negotiated for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. worker. Software. three dimensional 1612] personal warranty-that he taken to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all three signed files so you’re able to Lynn into the December 18, 1986.fn. step one
Brand new promissory note considering a trademark range having „Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of R/J Co. since the general lover off Peacock. Ramos finalized this new file „Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guaranty provided next surgical code:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties to your endeavor brought about Peacock in order to default toward House Federal funds
„In the planning of one’s mortgage in the Association to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and for any reason make certain and promise to invest so you can Connection, or whomever Connection purchases me to pay, every indebtedness out-of Borrower so you can Association confirmed from the, or perhaps in in whatever way related to the mortgage (as well as but not limited to extra advances or financing) or perhaps the note, and to do most of the covenants and you may preparations of Borrower present in the latest note otherwise any safety agreement anywhere between Borrower and Association.” The brand new signature line in the bottom of your own file sent to the brand new signature out of „Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos signed it he’d closed the new promissory mention: „R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted into the fresh new notice and Family Government produced suit so you can enforce the new warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to his signature since „Pres.” shown a purpose to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves myself to your warranty. At intimate of all evidence, new demo court granted House Federal’s activity having a brought verdict, concluding it was limited by brand new court’s decision from inside the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start with a phrase about the proceeding pose of case. The demo judge brought a verdict against Ramos, finishing there clearly was no disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational evidence and believing itself bound by an early on Judge out-of Desire decision. (Discover fundamentally Car Security Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a managing appellate choice, however, the new judge was right in choosing one zero jury concern try demonstrated. Once the Finest Courtroom informed me into the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], „The latest interpretation off a composed device, while it relates to what can safely become titled inquiries of truth [citation], is basically a judicial means is worked out depending on the basically approved canons from translation and so the reason for the instrument is generally provided impact. . It is therefore solely an official means in order to interpret a composed instrument until the fresh new translation converts abreast of this new dependability out-of extrinsic facts.” (Id. during the p. 865; pick plus Scientific Procedures Management, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because the events displayed little relevant with no contradictory extrinsic research (find Pacific Gasoline & 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 effective.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the trial court securely refused to fill in brand new interpretation of one’s created guarantee towards the jury. (Select Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d on p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On top of that, yet not, i once the reviewing judge take into account the proof and you will interpret the fresh new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional within p. 891.)
