Home Federal Offers & Mortgage Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Accused Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom after the trial legal brought a verdict in support of plaintiff Domestic Federal Offers & Mortgage Connection (Household Federal) out-of Ramos’s liability to the a consumer loan warranty https://paydayloancolorado.net/aurora/. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer to have Family Government, discussed new agreement that have Brooks and you will waiting about three files-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, the latest promissory note and the [229 Cal

Offender Ramos is actually president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. is the general mate away from a limited connection, this new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), formed to accomplish new Peacock Ridge framework project. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned almost $eight.4 billion into the Peacock partnership. Each of the five os.

When this occurs, Peacock due nice sums in the accrued notice and had most other obligations about the your panels. Home Federal acknowledged a good « workout agreement » where they forgave all but $100,100 of one’s attention and you may offered to loan Peacock an extra $fifty,100000. Inturn, Peacock promised to perform a good promissory mention to have $150,one hundred thousand safeguarded from the a personal guarantee closed of the Ramos.

Brand new exercise agreement was discussed with respect to Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. employee. App. 3d 1612] individual warranty-he brought to Brooks with regards to acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all the around three closed data so you’re able to Lynn for the December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The fresh new promissory notice offered a signature range getting « Ronald J. Ramos, President » off R/J Co. just like the standard spouse of Peacock. Ramos finalized the latest file « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. » The personal warranty provided the following medical code:

By the November 1986, financial difficulties towards enterprise triggered Peacock in order to standard toward House Government funds

« Inside consideration of mortgage in the Organization in order to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you may for any reason ensure and you can hope to expend in order to Organization, or whomever Relationship orders us to spend, all indebtedness away from Borrower to Relationship confirmed by the, or even in in whatever way pertaining to the borrowed funds (along with although not limited to most enhances otherwise financing) or the note, also to do all of the covenants and you may arrangements out of Debtor contained in the latest notice otherwise one safeguards arrangement ranging from Debtor and you will Organization. » The new signature line towards the bottom of the file provided for the new signature of « Ronald J. Ramos. » Rather, Ramos closed it as he’d signed the fresh promissory mention: « R.J. Ramos, Pres. »

When Peacock defaulted with the the new mention and Domestic Federal put fit to enforce new guarantee, Ramos defended on the floor you to definitely their signature as the « Pres. » shown an intention to help you join only R/J Co. and never himself directly towards the warranty. From the intimate of all of the facts, the fresh trial judge provided Family Federal’s action to possess a brought decision, concluding it had been bound by this new court’s decision for the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We begin with a word towards procedural present of case. This new demo courtroom directed a decision up against Ramos, concluding there is zero dispute in [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you can trusting by itself limited by a young Legal from Interest choice. (See fundamentally Auto Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Superior Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a controlling appellate decision, although not, the brand new legal was correct within the determining you to no jury matter try showed. Just like the Finest Legal told me in Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « The newest translation from a composed instrument, although it relates to what would properly become entitled issues out-of truth [citation], is basically a judicial mode to get exercised with respect to the essentially recognized canons out of interpretation therefore, the purposes of the fresh new device can be offered feeling. . So it is exclusively a judicial means so you can interpret a created means except if the latest interpretation converts through to the trustworthiness of extrinsic facts. » (Id. in the p. 865; get a hold of also Scientific Operations Government, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, given that people displayed nothing related no contradictory extrinsic facts (come across Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An effective.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the fresh trial legal properly would not fill out the fresh interpretation of written warranty with the jury. (Select Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) At exactly the same time, yet not, i since the looking at courtroom take into account the facts and you can interpret the guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional in the p. 891.)