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

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following demo court directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Domestic Federal Savings & Mortgage Organization (Home Federal) out-of Ramos’s accountability to your a personal bank loan warranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager to own Family Government, negotiated brand new agreement that have Brooks and you will wishing about three records-the mortgage amendment arrangement, the brand new promissory note and [229 Cal

Offender Ramos are chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. try the general partner off a restricted commitment, the fresh new Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), formed to-do the latest Peacock Ridge build endeavor. Between September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned nearly $7.cuatro billion into Peacock relationship. Each one https://paydayloancolorado.net/black-forest/ of the four operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed nice amounts from inside the accumulated notice together with most other personal debt to the the project. Domestic Government accepted a “work out agreement” in which they forgave just about $one hundred,100 of your own interest and you can agreed to loan Peacock a supplementary $fifty,000. In return, Peacock promised to perform a good promissory note to possess $150,100 protected of the your own guaranty signed by the Ramos.

New work-out agreement are negotiated on behalf of Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. staff member. Application. three-dimensional 1612] personal guarantee-that he delivered to Brooks with regards to obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back most of the around three signed data files in order to Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

This new promissory note given a trademark range getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from R/J Co. because the standard companion out-of Peacock. Ramos finalized new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee incorporated the next medical language:

Because of the November 1986, financial difficulties towards the endeavor triggered Peacock to default toward House Government fund

“From inside the believe of the mortgage on Connection so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you may unconditionally verify and you will promise to spend so you’re able to Relationship, or whomever Relationship purchases us to shell out, all indebtedness out of Borrower to help you Relationship confirmed because of the, or in in whatever way linked to the loan (including but not limited to extra advances otherwise finance) or the note, and carry out all the covenants and you can arrangements out of Borrower found in the latest notice or any defense arrangement ranging from Debtor and you will Organization.” Brand new trademark range at the end of your file delivered to the fresh new signature regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos signed it he previously signed the fresh new promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted into the the newest mention and you will Family Government brought suit in order to impose the fresh warranty, Ramos defended on the floor one to his signature because “Pres.” indicated an intent in order to join only Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves physically to your guaranty. Within close of the many proof, the brand new demonstration legal offered Household Federal’s activity to possess a directed decision, concluding it absolutely was bound by new court’s choice within the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We begin with a word about the procedural present of the circumstances. Brand new demonstration courtroom brought a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there is zero conflict in [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you will trusting alone bound by a young Courtroom regarding Appeal choice. (Find basically Vehicle Equity Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In the absence of a controlling appellate decision, not, the newest courtroom was correct from inside the choosing that zero jury question try exhibited. Due to the fact Best Judge explained during the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The latest translation out-of an authored device, while it relates to what can securely feel titled concerns of facts [citation], is essentially a judicial mode becoming resolved according to generally approved canons out-of translation therefore the reason for new appliance is generally offered impact. . It is therefore exclusively an official form so you can understand a created tool except if the latest translation converts upon the latest credibility out-of extrinsic facts.” (Id. within p. 865; come across together with Scientific Procedures Government, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because activities displayed nothing related and no contradictory extrinsic research (discover Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A great.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), brand new demonstration legal properly refused to fill out the brand new translation of the created warranty towards jury. (Get a hold of Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional within p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Likewise, however, i as the reviewing courtroom consider the evidence and you may understand the fresh new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional within p. 891.)