Family Federal Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Family Federal Offers & Loan Assn. v. Ramos (1991)

Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom following demonstration courtroom led a verdict in support of plaintiff Family Federal Deals & Mortgage Organization (Household Federal) out-of Ramos’s accountability to the a personal bank loan warranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer to possess Family Government, negotiated this new agreement with Brooks and you will waiting around three records-the mortgage modification contract, the new promissory notice as well as the [229 Cal

payday loans eugene oregon

Defendant Ramos try chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. is actually the general lover away from a finite relationship, the fresh Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), formed doing the newest Peacock Ridge structure endeavor. Between Sep 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Federal loaned almost $seven.4 mil to your Peacock relationship. Each of the four os.

When this occurs, Peacock due nice sums within the accrued interest along with other debt concerning the the project. Household Federal accepted an excellent “work-out contract” where they forgave just about $100,100000 of your own focus and you will accessible to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,100. In exchange, Peacock promised to perform an effective promissory note to have $150,000 covered by the an individual guaranty finalized by Ramos.

The fresh new exercise arrangement was negotiated on the part of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. employee. Application. 3d 1612] individual guaranty-that he taken to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back every three finalized files in order to Lynn for the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The new promissory note considering a trademark line having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from R/J Co. while the standard partner away from Peacock. Ramos signed the new file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee incorporated the following operative words:

By the November 1986, financial hardships on the opportunity caused Peacock in order to standard with the Home Federal fund

“During the said of loan about Organization in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and you can for any reason verify and you can vow to pay to Connection, otherwise whomever Relationship instructions me to shell out, any and all indebtedness out-of Borrower in order to Connection confirmed by, or in in any manner related to the borrowed funds (plus although not restricted to additional improves otherwise finance) or perhaps the mention, and to perform all of the covenants and you may plans from Debtor present in brand new mention otherwise people security contract anywhere between Borrower and Association.” The trademark line towards the bottom of your own document delivered to the new signature out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos closed it he previously finalized the fresh new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted toward the fresh note and you can House Federal lead match so you’re able to enforce the fresh warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to definitely his signature once the “Pres.” shown an intent in order to bind just R/J Co. rather than themselves directly with the warranty. Within romantic of all evidence, the new demonstration court granted Home Federal’s actions to possess a brought decision, concluding it absolutely was limited by brand new court’s choice in the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We focus on a keyword concerning the procedural present of your instance. The fresh new trial judge brought a decision up against Ramos, finishing there is certainly no disagreement in the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you may trusting in loans in Loveland itself limited by a young Legal out-of Appeal decision. (Look for basically Vehicles Collateral Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a controlling appellate decision, yet not, the courtroom try proper from inside the choosing one to no jury question are displayed. Given that Ultimate Court explained when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation away from a written means, whilst it comes to what can safely end up being entitled issues regarding fact [citation], is basically a judicial form become resolved depending on the generally accepted canons away from translation so that the reason for the brand new instrument could be given feeling. . So it’s entirely a judicial form so you’re able to interpret a composed software until the fresh new translation transforms up on this new dependability out-of extrinsic facts.” (Id. at the p. 865; select in addition to Medical Surgery Administration, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since activities shown little relevant and no conflicting extrinsic proof (get a hold of Pacific Gasoline & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.R.3d 1373]), the newest trial legal safely refused to fill out the newest interpretation of one’s written guarantee towards the jury. (See Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d during the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On top of that, but not, i because evaluating legal think about the research and you will interpret the fresh new guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional within p. 891.)

Lämna en kommentar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *