Home Government Coupons & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a view pursuing the demo legal directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Family Government Coupons & Mortgage Organization (Domestic Federal) regarding Ramos’s payday loans Center liability towards the a consumer loan warranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager to have Home Federal, negotiated the brand new agreement which have Brooks and you can waiting three records-the mortgage modification agreement, the promissory mention therefore the [229 Cal

Offender Ramos is actually president of your Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. are the overall companion out of a small connection, the fresh Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), molded to do the newest Peacock Ridge framework enterprise. Between Sep 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $seven.cuatro million towards the Peacock relationship. Each one of the four os.

At that point, Peacock due nice amounts in accumulated focus and had almost every other personal debt to the your panels. Family Government recognized a “work-out arrangement” where it forgave all but $100,100000 of one’s desire and you can agreed to loan Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. Inturn, Peacock assured to execute an effective promissory mention to own $150,one hundred thousand secured from the a personal guarantee signed by the Ramos.

Brand new workout arrangement is negotiated for Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff. Application. three-dimensional 1612] private warranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned the three finalized data so you can Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. 1

New promissory notice considering a signature line to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off R/J Co. as standard partner out of Peacock. Ramos signed the fresh file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee integrated next operative language:

Because of the November 1986, financial hardships towards the endeavor caused Peacock in order to default toward Household Federal financing

“Into the consideration of one’s loan regarding Relationship so you’re able to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you can for any reason make sure and vow to invest so you’re able to Connection, otherwise whoever Relationship sales us to pay, any indebtedness out-of Borrower so you’re able to Association evidenced of the, or perhaps in any way connected with the borrowed funds (also not limited by even more enhances or money) or perhaps the mention, and also to manage every covenants and you will plans from Borrower present in the newest note otherwise any coverage contract anywhere between Debtor and Relationship.” The brand new signature line at the end of one’s file delivered to the signature from “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it as he’d signed the latest promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted with the the latest mention and Domestic Federal brought suit so you can impose brand new guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one his signature due to the fact “Pres.” conveyed an intention so you can bind just Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself individually to the warranty. In the intimate of all of the research, brand new demonstration courtroom provided Family Federal’s activity to possess a led verdict, concluding it was limited by the fresh new court’s choice in Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start off with a phrase concerning the proceeding position of your circumstances. The demonstration court directed a decision against Ramos, finishing there is no argument inside the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational evidence and you may assuming in itself limited by an early on Courtroom away from Appeal choice. (Discover basically Vehicle Security Conversion process, Inc. v. Superior Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a managing appellate choice, not, the new courtroom is actually right from inside the determining you to definitely no jury question is showed. As Supreme Legal said inside Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The latest translation regarding a composed means, whilst it concerns what can properly feel entitled concerns of reality [citation], is basically a judicial setting becoming resolved according to the generally acknowledged canons out of interpretation so that the purposes of the fresh means are offered impression. . Therefore it is entirely a judicial means to interpret a created software except if this new translation converts on the fresh credibility of extrinsic evidence.” (Id. in the p. 865; come across along with Scientific Functions Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since the functions presented little relevant and no conflicting extrinsic proof (select Pacific Fuel & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A beneficial.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), this new demo courtroom properly refused to fill in the fresh translation of your own written warranty into jury. (Discover Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional on p. 892, fn.4.) At the same time, however, i given that reviewing court consider the evidence and you can translate the new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional in the p. 891.)