Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view pursuing the demonstration courtroom led a decision in favor of plaintiff Family Government Savings & Financing Association (Domestic Government) regarding Ramos’s accountability for the an unsecured loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing administrator to possess Domestic Government, negotiated new contract that have Brooks and prepared three records-the loan amendment agreement, the fresh promissory notice and also the [229 Cal
Offender Ramos is actually chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california firm. R/J Co. is actually the overall partner out-of a small relationship, new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), formed doing the new Peacock Ridge framework endeavor. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned nearly $seven.4 billion for the Peacock union. Each one of the four operating system.
At that point, Peacock due large figures for the accrued interest together with other personal debt to the your panels. Household Federal approved good « work out contract » where they forgave all but $a hundred,one hundred thousand of appeal and you can provided to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $50,one hundred thousand. Inturn, Peacock promised to execute a great promissory notice getting $150,one hundred thousand protected by the a personal warranty finalized from the Ramos.
The new work out agreement are negotiated on the behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. employee. Software. 3d 1612] private guaranty-that he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all the three closed data so you can Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
New promissory mention considering a signature line getting « Ronald J. Ramos, President » off Roentgen/J Co. due to the fact standard lover of Peacock. Ramos finalized the file « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The personal guaranty provided next surgical language:
From the November 1986, financial difficulties with the investment caused Peacock to default with the Domestic Federal finance
« Inside the consideration of one’s mortgage in the Connection in order to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you may unconditionally verify and pledge to blow to help you Organization, otherwise whomever Association purchases us to pay, every indebtedness from Debtor in order to Organization confirmed of the, or in in whatever way linked to the borrowed funds (together with not simply for most improves or financing) and/or notice, in order to create all covenants and you will plans away from Debtor present in the fresh note otherwise people safeguards agreement anywhere between Debtor and Relationship. » The new signature range in the bottom of the file delivered to the fresh new signature off « Ronald J. Ramos. » Alternatively, Ramos closed it as he previously finalized the newest promissory note: « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. »
Whenever Peacock defaulted with the the newest mention and you can House Government delivered match in order to demand the guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to definitely his signature because « Pres. » shown a purpose so you’re able to bind only Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves truly on guarantee. At the romantic of all of the research, the brand new demonstration court supplied Household Federal’s actions getting a directed verdict, finishing it absolutely was limited by the brand new court’s choice inside Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I focus on a keyword about the procedural present of one’s situation. The brand new trial legal directed a decision against Ramos, finishing there is zero argument in the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you may assuming by itself bound by an earlier Court out-of Focus choice. (Come across essentially Vehicle Equity Conversion, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a managing appellate choice, not, brand new judge is actually best in the deciding one to zero jury question are displayed. Once the Supreme Court explained within the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « The latest translation away from a written device, even though it involves what can safely become entitled concerns from facts [citation], is essentially an official form as resolved with respect to the fundamentally acknowledged canons of interpretation and so the reason for the fresh new software may be considering impact. . Making it solely a judicial means to help you translate an authored tool except if this new translation turns upon brand new dependability off extrinsic proof. » (Id. in the p. 865; pick 20k loan list Fleming plus Scientific Surgery Administration, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because events shown nothing relevant without conflicting extrinsic research (select Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An effective.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the latest trial court securely refused to complete the translation of one’s composed guaranty into jury. (Come across Medical Operations Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Likewise, but not, i while the looking at courtroom check out the evidence and interpret brand new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional in the p. 891.)
