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

Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following demonstration legal directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff House Federal Discounts & Mortgage Relationship (Domestic Government) out-of Ramos’s accountability on a personal loan warranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer to have Home Federal, discussed new arrangement with Brooks and you may wishing about three files-the loan modification contract payday loans in Cripple Creek CO, the promissory notice in addition to [229 Cal

Offender Ramos are president of your own Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. are the entire companion from a small relationship, the new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), designed accomplish the fresh Peacock Ridge construction opportunity. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned almost $eight.cuatro million to your Peacock relationship. All the five operating system.

At that point, Peacock due generous sums inside the accumulated attract together with almost every other personal debt regarding the the project. Household Government approved a great « exercise arrangement » in which it forgave all but $one hundred,100 of your focus and you may agreed to mortgage Peacock an extra $fifty,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock assured to execute an excellent promissory mention to own $150,100000 protected of the a personal warranty closed from the Ramos.

The latest workout arrangement is actually discussed on the behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. employee. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual warranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all the around three signed data so you can Lynn with the December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The latest promissory note considering a trademark range getting « Ronald J. Ramos, President » regarding Roentgen/J Co. just like the general lover out-of Peacock. Ramos closed the newest document « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The non-public guaranty provided the following operative code:

From the November 1986, financial difficulties on project brought about Peacock to help you standard into the Family Federal finance

« Inside the said of one’s mortgage on the Association so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you may unconditionally ensure and guarantee to pay so you can Connection, or anyone who Organization orders us to shell out, every indebtedness from Borrower so you can Organization confirmed from the, or perhaps in in any manner pertaining to the loan (including although not simply for even more advances otherwise financing) or the mention, in order to carry out most of the covenants and you can plans out-of Debtor found in brand new notice otherwise one coverage arrangement anywhere between Debtor and Relationship. » The latest trademark range towards the bottom of file taken to this new signature from « Ronald J. Ramos. » As an alternative, Ramos finalized it as he previously signed brand new promissory mention: « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. »

Whenever Peacock defaulted to the this new notice and you may Home Government brought suit so you’re able to impose new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one their trademark as the « Pres. » shown an intent so you’re able to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. rather than themselves in person on the guarantee. Within intimate of the many research, the latest demonstration legal provided Household Federal’s action to have a led decision, concluding it actually was limited by the latest court’s decision when you look at the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start with a keyword concerning procedural posture of circumstances. The brand new demonstration courtroom directed a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there clearly was no conflict from inside the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational research and believing in itself bound by an early Court away from Interest decision. (Look for essentially Auto Equity Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a managing appellate decision, however, new court was correct during the determining that zero jury question is actually exhibited. Because the Ultimate Court explained in the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « This new interpretation away from a written appliance, whilst it involves what can securely become titled issues out of fact [citation], is essentially a judicial means as worked out depending on the essentially approved canons of interpretation so the reason for the fresh tool is considering effect. . So it is only a judicial form to help you translate a composed tool unless of course brand new interpretation converts abreast of the fresh dependability from extrinsic research. » (Id. during the p. 865; find as well as Scientific Procedures Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because people showed little related and no conflicting extrinsic facts (get a hold of Pacific Gas & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A good.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the brand new demo judge properly refused to fill in the latest interpretation of your created warranty to your jury. (Pick Scientific Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional within p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, although not, i since evaluating court think about the proof and you may interpret the fresh new warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional during the p. 891.)