Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom following the demonstration courtroom directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff Family Federal Savings & Financing Organization (Domestic Government) from Ramos’s liability on an unsecured loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer getting Home Government, negotiated the contract having Brooks and you will waiting three records-the mortgage amendment contract, new promissory notice and [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is president of Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. are the entire companion out-of a restricted partnership, the newest Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), formed to do this new Peacock Ridge build venture. Ranging from September 1983 and you will February 1985, plaintiff Family Government loaned nearly $eight.4 million on Peacock relationship. Each of the four operating-system.
At that time, Peacock due reasonable figures inside the accumulated desire together with other debt concerning your panels. House Government accepted a good «work out contract» in which they forgave just about $100,100000 of your own desire and accessible to financing Peacock an additional $50,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock promised to do a beneficial promissory https://paydayloancolorado.net/minturn/ mention to have $150,100000 shielded by the an individual guaranty finalized because of the Ramos.
The newest work out contract is actually discussed on the behalf of Peacock by Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. staff member. Software. three-dimensional 1612] private warranty-he delivered to Brooks for the purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all of the three closed data in order to Lynn on the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh promissory note offered a signature range to own «Ronald J. Ramos, President» of R/J Co. since the standard companion from Peacock. Ramos closed new file «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The personal guarantee integrated the next medical vocabulary:
By the November 1986, financial hardships to the project brought about Peacock so you can standard towards House Government financing
«When you look at the consideration of your loan on the Relationship to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will unconditionally be sure and you may hope to expend so you can Organization, otherwise anyone who Association orders us to pay, all indebtedness out-of Debtor in order to Organization confirmed by, or perhaps in in any manner pertaining to the borrowed funds (in addition to yet not restricted to more enhances otherwise money) or the note, and perform most of the covenants and you will agreements away from Debtor present in the note or people safety contract between Borrower and Connection.» Brand new trademark line at the bottom of document taken to the signature off «Ronald J. Ramos.» Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he’d finalized this new promissory notice: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted with the brand new note and you will House Federal lead match in order to demand the latest guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one to his trademark because «Pres.» shown a purpose to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves really with the guaranty. At romantic of the many proof, the newest trial courtroom supplied Domestic Federal’s activity to own a brought verdict, concluding it was bound by this new court’s choice for the Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a keyword towards procedural pose of your case. The fresh new demo legal directed a decision against Ramos, finishing there’s zero disagreement within the [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and believing itself bound by an early on Courtroom from Interest choice. (Find generally Vehicle Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a regulating appellate choice, yet not, the courtroom is correct within the determining you to zero jury matter try showed. Since Best Legal informed me within the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «New translation out of an authored means, while it concerns what can properly end up being titled inquiries out-of truth [citation], is largely an official mode are resolved according to the essentially acknowledged canons from translation so the reason for new appliance are offered effect. . Making it solely a judicial means in order to translate an authored means until brand new interpretation turns through to the fresh new credibility of extrinsic research.» (Id. during the p. 865; get a hold of and additionally Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. National Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because events presented little relevant with no contradictory extrinsic facts (discover Pacific Gas & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An effective.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), this new trial courtroom safely would not complete the brand new interpretation of one’s created guaranty into jury. (Find Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d during the p. 892, fn.4.) At the same time, however, we just like the looking at judge consider the evidence and you may interpret the fresh new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 891.)