Family Government Savings & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom adopting the demo courtroom directed a verdict and only plaintiff House Government Coupons & Financing Relationship (Household Government) from Ramos's accountability for the a personal loan guaranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to possess Home Federal, negotiated the fresh new contract which have Brooks and wishing around three documents-the loan modification agreement, the new promissory note plus the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos is actually president of one's Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca corporation. R/J Co. are the entire spouse of a restricted union, the Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), molded accomplish new Peacock Ridge build project. Anywhere between September 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $7.4 million to the Peacock relationship. Each of the five operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed good-sized sums for the accumulated desire and had other obligations about the your panels. House Federal acknowledged a great "exercise agreement" where it forgave all but $100,000 of one's attract and you may provided to financing Peacock an extra $fifty,100. In exchange, Peacock guaranteed to do a good promissory mention getting $150,100 secure of the an individual guarantee signed from the Ramos.

Brand new exercise contract is discussed on behalf of Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. employee. App. 3d 1612] private guarantee-which he brought to Brooks for the intended purpose of acquiring Ramos's signature. Brooks returned the around three closed files to help you Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

Brand new promissory mention loans for bad credit Aguilar provided a signature range to have "Ronald J. Ramos, President" out of R/J Co. since standard spouse out of Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh new document "Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres." The personal warranty incorporated the second operative words:

By the November 1986, financial difficulties for the investment brought about Peacock so you can default on House Government funds

"From inside the attention of mortgage regarding Connection to help you Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will for any reason make certain and you can pledge to expend so you're able to Association, otherwise the person who Association instructions me to shell out, any and all indebtedness of Borrower so you can Relationship confirmed by, or in in any manner associated with the loan (including however limited to even more advances or finance) or the notice, in order to do all covenants and you can arrangements away from Borrower within new notice otherwise one defense agreement between Borrower and you can Organization." The signature line at the bottom of the file sent to the brand new signature out-of "Ronald J. Ramos." Alternatively, Ramos signed it he previously finalized the promissory mention: "Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres."

Whenever Peacock defaulted on the the new notice and you may Household Federal brought match so you're able to impose this new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor one to their signature just like the "Pres." shown an intention to help you bind only Roentgen/J Co. and not himself myself into guaranty. At close of all evidence, the latest demo legal provided Family Federal's motion to possess a directed decision, finishing it was limited by the fresh court's decision into the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start off with a word regarding the proceeding position of your case. The newest trial judge led a decision facing Ramos, finishing discover zero argument in [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you can trusting alone limited by an early Legal from Focus decision. (Pick generally Vehicle Equity Conversion, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a controlling appellate decision, however, the new courtroom are proper inside choosing you to definitely no jury matter are showed. Due to the fact Best Court said when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], "The newest translation away from a created means, while it comes to what might properly feel titled questions from reality [citation], is essentially an official means is resolved depending on the essentially accepted canons regarding translation therefore the reason for the new appliance is generally considering effect. . Making it solely a judicial means to translate a composed software except if the latest interpretation turns on the new credibility of extrinsic evidence." (Id. within p. 865; see and Scientific Businesses Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as the parties exhibited absolutely nothing associated with no conflicting extrinsic research (get a hold of Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the fresh demo judge properly would not fill out the new interpretation of one's composed guarantee to the jury. (Select Scientific Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d during the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On top of that, but not, we as evaluating courtroom think about the research and understand the latest warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional on p. 891.)