Home Government Coupons & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

admin October 10, 2024 0 Comment

Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view following demonstration court led a decision in favor of plaintiff Home Federal Offers & Mortgage Relationship (Family Government) from Ramos’s responsibility on an unsecured loan warranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing administrator to own Household Federal, negotiated this new contract which have Brooks and you may waiting about three records-the mortgage amendment agreement, the new promissory mention and [229 Cal

free instant cash advance apps

Defendant Ramos is president of the Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a ca enterprise. R/J Co. are the general lover out of a finite commitment, brand new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), formed to accomplish brand new Peacock Ridge construction enterprise. Between Sep 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Federal loaned almost $7.cuatro million into the Peacock union. Each of the four operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock due large amounts inside accumulated appeal and had almost every other debt to the the project. Family Government accepted an effective "work out contract" where it forgave just about $one hundred,100 of the attention and you can agreed to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,100. Inturn, Peacock promised to execute a great promissory note getting $150,100000 covered of the your own guarantee signed from the Ramos.

The brand new work-out arrangement was discussed with respect to Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. personnel. Application. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned every three signed documents to help you Lynn for the December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The brand new promissory note provided a trademark line for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding R/J Co. since the standard companion off Peacock. Ramos signed the brand new file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty incorporated next surgical language:

From the November 1986, financial hardships into venture brought about Peacock in order to default toward Domestic Federal loans

“Inside idea of mortgage regarding the Organization to help you Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and unconditionally make certain and you will promise to pay so you can Relationship, or whoever Organization commands us to spend, any indebtedness off Borrower to help you Association evidenced from the, or even in any way pertaining to the mortgage (also yet not restricted to most advances otherwise finance) or even the mention, and manage all of the covenants and preparations from Borrower found in the fresh new notice or any shelter arrangement ranging from Debtor and you will Association.” The fresh new signature range towards the bottom of document delivered to the newest signature off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos closed it as he had closed the newest promissory mention: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted on the brand new mention and you can House Federal lead suit to enforce the new guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor one to their trademark while the “Pres.” shown an intention in order to bind merely R/J Co. and not themselves physically to the warranty. In the intimate of all the facts, this new demo court offered House Federal’s activity to have a brought verdict, concluding it was limited by brand new court’s choice from inside the Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

fast cash loan Blende CO

I focus on a word regarding the procedural present of your own situation. The latest demo courtroom brought a verdict up against Ramos, finishing discover no disagreement inside the [229 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you can thinking in itself bound by a young Courtroom of Notice choice. (Look for essentially Car Guarantee Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a controlling appellate choice, but not, the fresh judge is actually best in the deciding that zero jury matter are presented. While the Supreme Court told me when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The newest interpretation out of a created means, whilst it comes to what might safely feel entitled inquiries from facts [citation], is largely an official form are resolved according to the essentially acknowledged canons of interpretation so that the purposes of the means tends to be provided impression. . So it’s solely a judicial means in order to interpret a written appliance except if new translation turns up on the fresh new credibility of extrinsic research.” (Id. at the p. 865; discover along with Scientific Operations Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, just like the people showed little relevant and no contradictory extrinsic research (select 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 A beneficial.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the latest demonstration courtroom properly would not fill in new translation of your own written guarantee to the jury. (Pick Scientific Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) As well, but not, i since the evaluating legal take into account the facts and you may translate the guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Medical Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional at p. 891.)

Tags -