Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view after the demonstration legal directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff Family Government Discounts & Loan Relationship (House Government) from Ramos’s liability towards the a personal loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing officer having House Government, negotiated the latest agreement having Brooks and you may wishing three data-the borrowed funds amendment arrangement, the latest promissory note therefore the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is actually chairman of Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. is the overall partner out-of a finite connection, the fresh new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to accomplish this new Peacock Ridge construction investment. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned almost $7.cuatro million towards Peacock partnership. All the four operating-system.
At that time, Peacock owed generous figures in accrued interest together with most other obligations to the the project. Home Government approved an effective «work-out agreement» in which they forgave just about $100,000 of your attention and you can wanted to financing Peacock an extra $50,100. In return, Peacock assured to do a good promissory mention to possess $150,100000 shielded of the a personal warranty finalized by the Ramos.
The new workout arrangement are discussed with respect to Peacock by Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. staff member. App. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-he delivered to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back the three closed records in order to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The new promissory mention considering a signature range to own «Ronald J. Ramos, President» off R/J Co. because standard partner from Peacock. Ramos finalized brand new file «R.J. Ramos, Pres.» The non-public guarantee integrated the following operative language:
By the November 1986, financial hardships toward enterprise caused Peacock to help you default to your Home Federal funds
«From inside the planning of one’s loan regarding the Organization to help you Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you may for any reason make sure and you may vow to spend in order to Connection, otherwise anyone who Connection orders us to shell out, every indebtedness regarding Borrower to help you Association confirmed by the, or perhaps in in any manner linked to the mortgage (along with but not limited to additional improves or money) and/or note, also to do all covenants and plans away from Debtor within the notice or people coverage arrangement between Debtor and you can Association.» The latest signature line at the bottom of the document taken to the fresh new trademark off «Ronald J. Ramos.» Alternatively, Ramos closed it as he had closed new promissory note: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted to your the brand new mention and you can Home Federal delivered match so you’re able to enforce this new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor that his signature because «Pres.» expressed an intent to help you join just Roentgen/J Co. and never himself in person to your guaranty. At the close of all the evidence, the newest demonstration legal granted Domestic Federal’s action to possess a directed verdict, concluding it actually was bound by the fresh court’s decision from inside the Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a word regarding procedural pose of one’s case. Brand new demonstration court brought a verdict facing Ramos, concluding you will find no conflict in the [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the relevant Redstone loans foundational facts and you will thinking alone bound by an early on Court regarding Desire choice. (Look for generally Vehicle Security Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a managing appellate decision, not, this new judge was correct in choosing you to zero jury concern was showed. As Ultimate Judge explained in Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «The brand new translation from a created means, although it comes to what would safely getting titled concerns regarding reality [citation], is largely an official means are resolved depending on the basically accepted canons regarding interpretation so the reason for the brand new means could be offered impression. . Therefore it is exclusively a judicial setting so you can understand a written appliance except if the brand new interpretation converts on the fresh trustworthiness from extrinsic proof.» (Id. during the p. 865; see including Medical Businesses Government, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, while the people showed little associated no conflicting extrinsic facts (find Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A beneficial.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the newest demonstration court securely would not complete new interpretation of one’s composed warranty towards the jury. (Pick Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional on p. 892, fn.4.) At the same time, not, we as evaluating courtroom think about the proof and you can understand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Scientific Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d on p. 891.)
