Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment following trial legal led a verdict and only plaintiff Household Government Offers & Financing Connection (Household Federal) from Ramos’s liability towards an unsecured loan guarantee. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager getting Domestic Government, negotiated the brand new contract having Brooks and prepared three data files-the mortgage modification arrangement, the fresh promissory notice loans Eaton CO in addition to [229 Cal
Accused Ramos try president of your Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a ca corporation. R/J Co. are the general lover away from a restricted relationship, the latest Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed to do the brand new Peacock Ridge build enterprise. Between Sep 1983 and you will February 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned almost $7.4 billion to your Peacock connection. Each of the four operating-system.
At that time, Peacock due nice amounts from inside the accumulated desire together with almost every other financial obligation concerning the your panels. Household Federal acknowledged an effective “exercise agreement” where they forgave all but $one hundred,100 of the focus and you can wanted to financing Peacock an extra $50,one hundred thousand. Reciprocally, Peacock guaranteed to execute an effective promissory note having $150,100000 protected by the a personal warranty signed from the Ramos.
The new workout arrangement was negotiated on the part of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. employee. Application. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned the three signed data in order to Lynn with the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The fresh promissory note given a signature line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding R/J Co. once the standard mate out-of Peacock. Ramos finalized the latest file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee provided the second medical language:
From the November 1986, financial difficulties towards investment brought about Peacock so you can default towards Family Federal financing
“For the planning of your own loan regarding the Association so you can Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and you can for any reason be certain that and you will pledge to spend to help you Organization, otherwise whoever Connection sales me to shell out, any indebtedness out-of Debtor so you can Connection evidenced from the, or in any way linked to the loan (also yet not restricted to more improves or fund) and/or notice, and also to would every covenants and arrangements out-of Debtor present in the fresh note otherwise any shelter agreement anywhere between Debtor and you will Association.” The trademark line towards the bottom of file sent to the trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos finalized it he’d closed the promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted for the the new mention and you may Family Government brought fit so you’re able to enforce the fresh new warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor that his signature as “Pres.” shown a purpose so you’re able to join simply R/J Co. and not themselves physically into guarantee. In the romantic of all of the facts, the newest demonstration court offered Household Federal’s activity to have a led decision, concluding it had been bound by the brand new court’s choice into the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a keyword towards procedural present of situation. New demonstration court brought a verdict against Ramos, concluding there was zero dispute into the [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you will believing by itself bound by an early on Court out-of Interest choice. (Discover basically Car Guarantee Sales, Inc. v. Premium Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a managing appellate choice, yet not, the courtroom was correct within the determining that zero jury question is presented. As Ultimate Courtroom informed me from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation of a written instrument, although it pertains to what can securely getting entitled questions out of facts [citation], is basically a judicial setting to-be exercised according to the generally approved canons out of translation therefore, the purposes of the fresh device is generally provided effect. . Therefore it is entirely a judicial mode in order to interpret a composed appliance except if the fresh new interpretation transforms up on brand new trustworthiness out of extrinsic research.” (Id. at the p. 865; get a hold of and additionally Medical Functions Management, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, once the functions displayed absolutely nothing related with no contradictory extrinsic facts (get a hold of Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An excellent.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the demonstration legal safely refused to fill out the interpretation of your own written guaranty on the jury. (Come across Medical Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional within p. 892, fn.4.) Simultaneously, not, we since the examining courtroom think about the proof and understand new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d from the p. 891.)
Leave a Reply