Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom following the trial legal brought a verdict in favor of plaintiff Family Government Offers & Loan Association (Family Government) regarding Ramos’s liability to your a personal bank loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer getting Family Government, discussed the brand new arrangement with Brooks and prepared about three records-the borrowed funds amendment agreement, the fresh new promissory note therefore the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos are chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a ca agency. R/J Co. is actually the overall spouse off a finite commitment, the fresh Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to complete brand new Peacock Ridge construction project. Between Sep 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $7.cuatro million towards Peacock commitment. Each one of the five operating system.
At that point, Peacock owed big sums for the accumulated desire and had most other obligations regarding the the project. Household Federal acknowledged a great “work out agreement” where it forgave all but $a hundred,100 of your interest and provided to loan Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock assured to perform an excellent promissory note to have $150,100 secured by the a personal guaranty closed from the Ramos.
This new work out contract is negotiated on behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. Software. three dimensional 1612] private warranty-he delivered to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned every around three closed data files so you’re able to Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
New promissory note provided a trademark line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding R/J Co. once the general spouse out-of Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guarantee included the following medical language:
By the November 1986, financial hardships on enterprise caused Peacock to help you default toward Household Federal money
“From inside the planning of the financing on Organization so you’re able to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you will for any reason be sure and you will promise to blow to Connection, or anyone who Organization sales us to pay, all indebtedness away from Debtor to Organization evidenced by the, or in in any manner regarding the mortgage (and additionally however limited by more improves or finance) or even the mention, and manage all covenants and you can arrangements off Debtor present in this new mention or any protection arrangement anywhere between Borrower and you will Connection.” The signature line at the end of your document provided for the brand new signature of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos closed it as he had finalized brand new promissory notice: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted towards the the brand new notice and you may Household Government introduced suit to demand the fresh guarantee, Ramos defended on to the ground one their signature just like the “Pres.” indicated a purpose to help you join merely Roentgen/J Co. and never himself physically to your guarantee. Within romantic of all the evidence, the new demonstration courtroom provided Family Federal’s actions for a directed decision, finishing it had been bound by the court’s choice for the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I focus on a keyword regarding the procedural present of one’s case. The newest demo court directed a verdict facing Ramos, finishing there is certainly zero conflict within the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational evidence and you may assuming in itself bound by a young Judge away from Attention choice. (Get a hold of generally Automobile Guarantee Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a controlling appellate choice, but not, the latest legal is actually proper in determining one to no jury concern is actually displayed. Once the Ultimate Court informed me within the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh interpretation out of a composed instrument, whilst it relates to what would safely be named concerns out of reality [citation], is basically a judicial mode to get resolved with regards to the generally accepted canons out-of interpretation so the purposes of new means is generally considering impact. . So it is only an official means in order to understand an authored software except if brand new interpretation transforms abreast of the newest trustworthiness from extrinsic proof.” (Id. during the p. 865; select as well as Medical Surgery Government, Inc. v. National Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, just like the parties demonstrated nothing associated without contradictory extrinsic proof (look for Pacific Gasoline & E. 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 latest trial legal safely refused to fill out the fresh new interpretation of your own authored guaranty towards the jury. (Pick Medical Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional on p. 892, fn.4.) Simultaneously, not, i due to the fact evaluating judge take into account the research and understand the brand new warranty de- novo. (Parsons https://clickcashadvance.com/loans/pre-approved-personal-loan/, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Medical Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d within p. 891.)