Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom pursuing the demo court directed a decision in support of plaintiff House Federal Savings & Financing Connection (Home Government) regarding Ramos’s liability into a personal loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator for House Government, negotiated the latest agreement having Brooks and you can wishing three data files-the borrowed funds amendment arrangement, the newest promissory notice in addition to [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. is all round partner of a restricted connection, brand new Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), shaped accomplish brand new Peacock Ridge framework opportunity. Between Sep 1983 https://paydayloancolorado.net/log-lane-village/ and you may February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $eight.cuatro mil into the Peacock partnership. Each one of the five operating-system.
At that time, Peacock due nice sums during the accumulated notice along with most other financial obligation concerning the the project. House Government recognized an excellent “exercise contract” in which it forgave just about $a hundred,100 of attract and you may agreed to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,one hundred thousand. In return, Peacock assured to perform a great promissory note for $150,000 covered by an individual guaranty closed by Ramos.
The fresh work-out agreement was discussed for Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. personnel. App. 3d 1612] individual guarantee-he taken to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned the about three signed documents in order to Lynn on the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
New promissory mention considering a trademark range to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off Roentgen/J Co. just like the general spouse out of Peacock. Ramos closed this new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty provided next medical language:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties to your investment caused Peacock to default into House Federal money
“Inside idea of loan on Connection to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and you may for any reason verify and you will vow to spend so you can Association, otherwise whoever Connection purchases us to shell out, any indebtedness regarding Borrower to Association evidenced by the, or even in any way linked to the loan (in addition to yet not limited to a lot more enhances or money) or perhaps the note, also to carry out the covenants and plans away from Debtor within brand new note or people safety agreement anywhere between Debtor and you can Relationship.” New trademark range towards the bottom of one’s file sent to the newest trademark out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos signed it he previously closed the fresh new promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted with the the mention and you will House Government put match to demand the fresh new warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his trademark while the “Pres.” conveyed an intention to help you join only R/J Co. rather than themselves truly into guarantee. In the close of all the research, brand new demonstration courtroom offered Domestic Federal’s action getting a led verdict, concluding it absolutely was bound by the new court’s choice within the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a term regarding procedural posture of your own case. The fresh new trial court led a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there can be no disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you may believing itself bound by a young Judge out of Attract choice. (See basically Vehicles Security Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a regulating appellate choice, but not, the new court are proper in determining that no jury question was displayed. While the Ultimate Legal said during the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new translation out-of a written appliance, while it involves what can properly feel entitled questions regarding fact [citation], is basically an official setting as worked out with regards to the basically recognized canons from interpretation and so the reason for brand new software may be provided impact. . Making it exclusively an official function so you can interpret an authored tool except if the fresh new translation converts upon the latest credibility out-of extrinsic research.” (Id. at p. 865; see together with Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. National Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the functions displayed nothing related without conflicting extrinsic proof (select Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A good.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the brand new demo legal properly refused to submit brand new interpretation of one’s created guarantee into jury. (Come across Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d within p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, however, we since evaluating legal consider the research and translate the warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 891.)