Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment following the demonstration court directed a verdict and only plaintiff Home Federal Discounts & Financing Relationship (Household Government) from Ramos’s liability toward an unsecured loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary financing officer to possess House Federal, discussed this new arrangement having Brooks and wishing around three documents-the mortgage modification contract, brand new promissory notice and also the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos was chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california organization. R/J Co. is actually the entire partner from a restricted union, the Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), shaped to complete brand new Peacock Ridge framework opportunity. Between September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff Home Government loaned nearly $7.4 billion on Peacock union. Each of the four os.
At that time, Peacock owed good-sized sums in accrued appeal and had other loans about the your panels. House Federal acknowledged a “work out arrangement” in which they forgave all but $a hundred,000 of the desire and offered to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100. Reciprocally, Peacock assured to do an effective promissory mention to own $150,100 covered because of the your own guaranty finalized by Ramos.
The loans in Air Force Academy fresh work-out arrangement is actually discussed on the behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. employee. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual warranty-that he taken to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all the three finalized data to help you Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
This new promissory notice offered a trademark line to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of R/J Co. due to the fact general mate of Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty included the following operative language:
By the November 1986, financial hardships with the enterprise triggered Peacock to help you standard on Household Government loans
“In the idea of your own mortgage on the Association to help you Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you may unconditionally be certain that and you may pledge to spend in order to Association, or whomever Connection requests me to spend, any indebtedness of Debtor in order to Organization confirmed by, or in in any manner linked to the mortgage (and yet not limited by extra improves otherwise funds) or even the notice, also to perform every covenants and you can preparations of Debtor within the notice or any safeguards agreement ranging from Debtor and you will Relationship.” The brand new signature range in the bottom of your own file provided for this new trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos signed it he previously signed the new promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted into brand new mention and you may Household Federal delivered suit to help you enforce the brand new guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor one their trademark as the “Pres.” indicated an intention to help you join merely R/J Co. rather than themselves personally into guarantee. During the intimate of all evidence, the newest demo judge granted Household Federal’s motion getting a brought verdict, finishing it was bound by the fresh new court’s decision during the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a word towards proceeding position of case. The trial judge directed a decision up against Ramos, finishing there clearly was zero dispute in the [229 Cal. Software. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you will thinking itself bound by an early on Courtroom off Appeal decision. (Come across basically Car Equity Sales, Inc. v. Premium Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a controlling appellate choice, not, brand new courtroom is best inside the determining one to no jury concern try displayed. As Ultimate Legal said when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “New translation away from a created device, whilst it comes to what might safely end up being named issues off fact [citation], is essentially an official setting to get exercised depending on the essentially acknowledged canons out of translation and so the reason for the new device are given effect. . So it’s solely a judicial function to help you translate a composed appliance unless brand new translation transforms abreast of new credibility out-of extrinsic facts.” (Id. on p. 865; pick along with Medical Surgery Administration, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as events displayed little relevant with no conflicting extrinsic facts (find Pacific Fuel & E. 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 great.L.R.3d 1373]), the demonstration judge securely refused to fill in the fresh interpretation of your own authored warranty with the jury. (See Scientific Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) In addition, yet not, i because examining judge take into account the proof and you will understand the brand new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 891.)