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

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment adopting the demo courtroom brought a verdict in favor of plaintiff Family Government Savings & Mortgage Association (Home Government) away from Ramos’s responsibility to your a personal loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major financing manager to have Home Government, negotiated the fresh agreement that have Brooks and you will waiting three documents-the borrowed funds amendment agreement, the latest promissory note as well as the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos are president of the Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. are all round partner from a small partnership, the fresh Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded to complete the brand new Peacock Ridge build opportunity. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned nearly $seven.cuatro billion to your Peacock union. All the four operating-system.

At that point, Peacock due reasonable sums inside the accumulated appeal together with almost every other obligations regarding the the project. Home Government accepted good “work-out arrangement” in which they forgave just about $100,000 of one’s attention and wanted to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,100. In exchange, Peacock promised to do an excellent promissory mention to possess $150,000 shielded of the a personal warranty closed of the Ramos.

The brand new work-out contract is discussed on the part of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. employee. App. three-dimensional 1612] personal guarantee-he delivered to Brooks for the purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all of the around three closed data files to help you Lynn into the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The newest promissory mention offered a trademark line to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off R/J Co. while the standard companion off Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee provided next medical vocabulary:

Because of the November 1986, financial hardships towards the investment caused Peacock to help you standard towards Family Government money

“Inside consideration of your mortgage regarding Connection in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you may unconditionally make certain and you can vow to blow so you’re able to Organization, or the person who Relationship requests us to shell out, any and all indebtedness of Borrower in order to Association evidenced by, or even in in any manner related to the borrowed funds (as well as although not limited to a lot more improves otherwise finance) or even the note, and perform the covenants and you can preparations off Debtor present in the new notice otherwise people shelter arrangement between Debtor and you will Relationship.” The fresh new trademark line towards the bottom of the file provided for this new trademark off “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it as he previously signed new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted on the the new notice and you will House Government Read Full Report delivered suit to help you demand the guaranty, Ramos defended on the ground one their trademark because “Pres.” shown an intention in order to join merely Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself myself on guarantee. At the romantic of all proof, the latest trial court granted Household Federal’s activity having a led verdict, concluding it was limited by the court’s choice during the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start off with a word concerning the procedural posture of your instance. The newest demonstration legal directed a verdict against Ramos, concluding you will find no argument for the [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you may thinking itself bound by an early Court away from Attract decision. (See basically Car Equity Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a managing appellate decision, although not, the fresh new courtroom was correct when you look at the determining one zero jury question is exhibited. As Supreme Courtroom informed me inside the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation off a created instrument, while it relates to what would safely be named concerns from truth [citation], is essentially an official function to be worked out according to basically approved canons regarding translation so that the purposes of this new device can be given effect. . So it’s entirely an official mode to understand a written tool except if the latest interpretation transforms on new credibility out-of extrinsic proof.” (Id. on p. 865; select as well as Medical Surgery Government, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since people displayed nothing associated no contradictory extrinsic proof (select Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A great.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the brand new demo judge properly refused to complete the brand new interpretation of written guarantee on jury. (Come across Scientific Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) While doing so, but not, i given that examining courtroom look at the research and understand the guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional within p. 891.)