Home Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view after the trial court brought a verdict and only plaintiff House Federal Deals & Financing Relationship (Home Federal) out of Ramos’s responsibility to the a personal bank loan guarantee. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major financing officer to possess Family Federal, negotiated the fresh new arrangement having Brooks and you can waiting three records-the borrowed funds amendment contract, the new promissory mention and [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos try president of Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a ca business. R/J Co. try the overall lover away from a finite union, the Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to accomplish the newest Peacock Ridge build investment. Ranging from September 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff Household Government loaned nearly $7.4 mil toward Peacock commitment. All the four operating system.

At that point, Peacock due reasonable figures during the accumulated appeal and had other financial obligation regarding the the project. Domestic Federal approved an effective “exercise agreement” in which they forgave all but $100,000 of notice and you may wanted to mortgage Peacock an extra $fifty,100. In return, Peacock assured to execute a promissory note to possess $150,100 safeguarded because of the a personal warranty closed by the Ramos.

Brand new exercise agreement is actually negotiated on behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. worker. Software. three-dimensional 1612] private warranty-which he taken to Brooks for the purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the three closed files so you’re able to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step one

Brand new promissory mention provided a trademark range having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of Roentgen/J Co. since standard companion of Peacock. Ramos signed brand new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guaranty provided the next surgical words:

By November 1986, financial difficulties on the investment caused Peacock so you can default to the Household Federal money

“Into the consideration of your own mortgage throughout the Association so you’re able to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you can unconditionally make certain and you can guarantee to pay to help you Relationship, or whoever Connection sales me to pay, any and all indebtedness from Debtor in order to Organization confirmed from the, or perhaps in in any manner about the loan (plus not limited by even more advances otherwise money) or perhaps the note, also to create most of the covenants and you can preparations of Debtor present in the new notice otherwise any coverage arrangement between Debtor and you will Organization.” The new trademark line in the bottom of your own document taken to the trademark out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos closed it as he previously closed the fresh promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted towards the mention and you can Family Federal produced fit in order to demand the fresh warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to definitely his trademark while the “Pres.” expressed an intention in order to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. rather than themselves yourself into warranty. On intimate of all facts, the demo court provided Household Federal’s motion having a led verdict, finishing it was bound by the newest court’s choice within the Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I begin with a word towards procedural pose of circumstances. The fresh demo judge brought a decision facing Ramos, concluding there was no disagreement inside the [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you will assuming by itself bound by an early on Judge out of Attract choice. (Discover fundamentally Car Security Transformation, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a controlling appellate decision, although not, the latest judge are proper from inside the determining you to definitely no jury matter are displayed. Since Finest Legal explained from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh translation of a written device, although it concerns what might safely become named concerns off truth [citation], is basically an www.paydayloancolorado.net/holly/ official form to get resolved according to the basically accepted canons regarding translation therefore, the purposes of the fresh software may be offered effect. . So it is solely a judicial means so you’re able to understand a created instrument unless of course the brand new interpretation turns upon the fresh dependability out of extrinsic research.” (Id. at the p. 865; select also Medical Operations Government, Inc. v. Federal Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because the activities demonstrated absolutely nothing relevant without conflicting extrinsic proof (come across Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), brand new demo judge safely refused to complete the fresh new interpretation of authored warranty for the jury. (Get a hold of Scientific Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional in the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On the other hand, not, i because the evaluating judge take into account the research and you may interpret the fresh warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d from the p. 891.)