Family Federal Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)
Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view following the demonstration court directed a verdict and only plaintiff Family Government Discounts & Mortgage Organization (Family Federal) of Ramos’s responsibility for the a consumer loan guarantee. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer getting Family Federal, discussed the newest arrangement with Brooks and you will prepared around three data files-the loan amendment contract, the promissory mention therefore the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos are chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca corporation. R/J Co. was the overall lover out-of a limited union, new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), molded to accomplish the latest Peacock Ridge build enterprise. Anywhere between September 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $7.cuatro million with the Peacock connection. All the four operating system.
When this occurs, Peacock due ample sums into the accrued interest and had other loans about the your panels. Home Government approved an effective «work out contract» where they forgave just about $a hundred,one hundred thousand of the focus and you may provided to financing Peacock a supplementary $fifty,000. Reciprocally, Peacock assured to do a great promissory mention to have $150,100000 secure from the a personal warranty closed by Ramos.
New work-out arrangement was discussed for Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. worker. App. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-that he brought to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the three signed files to help you Lynn toward December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The newest promissory notice offered a signature range to have «Ronald J. Ramos, President» of Roentgen/J Co. given that general mate from Peacock. Ramos closed brand new file «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The private warranty included the following operative code:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties toward opportunity triggered Peacock in order to standard with the Home Federal funds
«Into the idea of your own financing throughout the Connection so you’re able to Debtor, I, payday loans in Gardner CO online Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you can unconditionally make sure and you can promise to expend so you’re able to Connection, otherwise whoever Organization purchases me to spend, every indebtedness regarding Debtor to help you Relationship confirmed by the, or even in any way regarding the borrowed funds (and additionally yet not simply for even more enhances or financing) or even the notice, and to create most of the covenants and you may plans regarding Borrower found in the latest note or any coverage agreement between Debtor and you may Organization.» The brand new signature line at the end of one’s document provided for the newest signature out-of «Ronald J. Ramos.» As an alternative, Ramos signed it he had signed new promissory notice: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted to your the brand new note and you may Family Federal brought fit so you can demand the newest guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor you to their signature as the «Pres.» indicated an intention so you can bind just R/J Co. and never himself yourself on the warranty. From the close of all the research, the fresh trial courtroom offered Household Federal’s motion getting a led verdict, finishing it had been bound by the brand new court’s decision inside the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I begin with a term about the procedural pose of instance. This new demo legal directed a decision against Ramos, finishing you will find no disagreement into the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you may trusting by itself limited by an early on Courtroom off Appeal choice. (Come across essentially Auto Equity Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a managing appellate choice, however, the newest judge is proper during the choosing you to definitely no jury concern is actually demonstrated. Due to the fact Finest Court told me into the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «The new interpretation off an authored device, even though it involves what might properly getting titled issues of reality [citation], is basically an official function becoming worked out depending on the fundamentally approved canons away from translation therefore the purposes of brand new means can be considering impression. . So it is exclusively a judicial setting so you’re able to understand a created tool unless of course the newest translation turns on the fresh trustworthiness regarding extrinsic evidence.» (Id. on p. 865; find also Scientific Functions Administration, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, once the functions showed absolutely nothing associated and no contradictory extrinsic proof (find Pacific Energy & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An effective.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), new trial courtroom safely would not submit the new interpretation of your created guarantee into the jury. (Find Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, but not, i while the examining court think about the evidence and you can understand the fresh new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at the p. 866; Medical Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional within p. 891.)
