Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment after the demonstration courtroom led a verdict in favor of plaintiff Family Government Savings & Financing Organization (Family Government) off Ramos’s accountability into a personal bank loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to have Domestic Government, discussed the fresh new agreement which have Brooks and waiting three files-the loan amendment agreement, the brand new promissory mention while the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos are chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. is the general companion of a limited connection, the brand new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to do the fresh new Peacock Ridge framework endeavor. Between Sep 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $seven.4 million to the Peacock partnership. All the five operating system.
At that time, Peacock due big amounts during the accumulated focus along with almost every other obligations to the your panels. Domestic Government approved an excellent “workout arrangement” where it forgave just about $100,000 of one’s interest and you can offered to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock promised to execute a great promissory mention getting $150,100 protected of the your own warranty signed from the Ramos.
The new work out arrangement try discussed on the behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. Application. three-dimensional 1612] personal guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the around three closed records to Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The newest promissory notice offered a trademark range for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. as the standard companion regarding Peacock. Ramos closed the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee incorporated next surgical vocabulary:
By November 1986, financial difficulties towards the opportunity brought https://paydayloancolorado.net/bennett/ about Peacock to help you standard into the Home Federal loans
“During the thought of the financing on Relationship to help you Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), seriously and for any reason make sure and you may hope to spend to help you Organization, otherwise the person who Association purchases us to shell out, any and all indebtedness away from Debtor to help you Connection confirmed by, or in any way pertaining to the loan (also yet not restricted to extra enhances otherwise money) or even the notice, in order to perform every covenants and you can plans away from Borrower found in brand new notice otherwise one security contract between Borrower and you can Association.” The fresh trademark line towards the bottom of your file provided for the fresh new trademark from “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it he’d signed the fresh promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted into brand new notice and you may House Federal produced suit so you can demand new guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one to their signature because “Pres.” indicated an intent to join merely R/J Co. rather than themselves yourself towards the guaranty. At the romantic of the many research, the trial courtroom offered Domestic Federal’s activity to possess a directed decision, concluding it absolutely was limited by brand new court’s choice into the Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a keyword regarding the proceeding position of situation. The trial court directed a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there clearly was zero conflict within the [229 Cal. Software. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational research and you can trusting by itself limited by an earlier Legal away from Attention decision. (Pick generally Vehicle Equity Sales, Inc. v. Premium Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a controlling appellate decision, yet not, this new judge is proper from inside the choosing one no jury concern is actually showed. Because Finest Judge informed me during the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new interpretation of an authored instrument, while it relates to what might safely become entitled questions of truth [citation], is essentially a judicial setting to be exercised with respect to the essentially acknowledged canons of interpretation therefore, the purposes of brand new appliance can be given effect. . Therefore it is only an official function so you’re able to interpret an authored device until brand new translation converts abreast of the trustworthiness out-of extrinsic facts.” (Id. within p. 865; pick and Medical Operations Administration, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the functions presented nothing relevant and no conflicting extrinsic facts (look for Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An excellent.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the newest demo judge safely refused to fill out the fresh new interpretation of created guarantee on jury. (Discover Medical Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, although not, we just like the examining legal consider the evidence and you will interpret the latest guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional from the p. 891.)