Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom following the demonstration legal led a decision in favor of plaintiff House Government Discounts & Financing Association (Domestic Government) of Ramos’s liability to your an unsecured loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer to possess Home Federal, discussed the new contract that have Brooks and you may waiting around three records-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, this new promissory mention as well as the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is president of Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california company. R/J Co. is actually all round lover out of a small connection, the newest Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed to do the newest Peacock Ridge framework venture. Ranging from September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned almost $eight.cuatro billion towards Peacock union. Each of the four operating system.
At that point, Peacock owed generous figures in the accumulated attract and had most other obligations about the your panels. Family Federal acknowledged an effective “exercise agreement” in which they forgave just about $100,000 of your interest and provided to loan Peacock an extra $fifty,100. In return, Peacock assured to perform a promissory notice to have $150,000 safeguarded from the your own guaranty closed from the Ramos.
The fresh new work-out agreement try negotiated on the part of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. employee. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-he brought to Brooks for the purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all about three signed files so you’re able to Lynn on the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
New promissory mention given a signature line having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of Roentgen/J Co. because the standard partner regarding Peacock. Ramos closed the newest document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty integrated the next surgical code:
Because of the November 1986, financial difficulties to your opportunity brought about Peacock so you’re able to default on Family Government loans
“Within the said of your own mortgage regarding the Relationship so you’re able to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you may for any reason guarantee and you may guarantee to expend to help you Organization, otherwise whoever Association requests us to spend, any indebtedness away from Borrower so you’re able to Association evidenced because of the, or in in whatever way pertaining to the loan (including but not limited to additional improves otherwise loans) or perhaps the notice, also to do all covenants and you can plans from Debtor within the fresh notice otherwise any safety agreement between Borrower and you may Association.” The brand new trademark line at the end of the document delivered to new trademark of “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos closed it as he had closed the fresh new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted on the the latest mention and you may House Government put fit in order to impose the guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one their More hints trademark as the “Pres.” indicated an intent to help you join only Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself really toward warranty. At romantic of all the proof, new demo courtroom supplied Family Federal’s activity to possess a brought decision, finishing it absolutely was limited by new court’s decision into the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start with a keyword concerning the procedural position of case. The fresh new demo court directed a verdict against Ramos, concluding you will find zero disagreement inside the [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational research and you may trusting alone bound by an early Legal out of Notice choice. (Look for basically Auto Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a controlling appellate choice, although not, the fresh new legal are best for the deciding one to zero jury concern is shown. Just like the Ultimate Courtroom explained into the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The brand new translation from a created appliance, while it involves what might securely be named concerns off truth [citation], is essentially an official mode to be resolved with respect to the essentially approved canons off translation so the reason for brand new software tends to be provided feeling. . So it’s only an official mode to help you interpret a written tool unless this new interpretation transforms abreast of the dependability of extrinsic research.” (Id. at the p. 865; pick along with Scientific Businesses Administration, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since the activities displayed absolutely nothing relevant no contradictory extrinsic research (discover Pacific Gas & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 Good.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh demo legal safely would not complete the fresh interpretation of your created guarantee into jury. (See Medical Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional within p. 892, fn.4.) Likewise, yet not, i as evaluating legal take into account the research and you will interpret the fresh guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d from the p. 891.)