كلية العلوم جامعة القاهرة
Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment following the demonstration courtroom directed a decision and only plaintiff Home Government Coupons & Financing Connection (Family Government) away from Ramos’s accountability into a personal loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan manager to have House Federal, discussed the fresh arrangement having Brooks and you can waiting about three records-the borrowed funds modification contract, the promissory notice and also the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos was chairman of one’s Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca business. R/J Co. try the general lover out of a limited union, the brand new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), shaped to accomplish the fresh new Peacock Ridge framework endeavor. Anywhere between September 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned almost $7.cuatro billion for the Peacock commitment. Each one of the four operating-system.
When this occurs, Peacock due ample amounts in the accrued focus along with other obligations regarding the your panels. Household Government recognized a “workout agreement” where it forgave just about $a hundred,100000 of your own focus and you can wanted to mortgage Peacock an extra $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock guaranteed to perform a promissory notice to have $150,100 shielded because of the an individual guarantee closed by the Ramos.
New work out arrangement was discussed on the behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. App. three-dimensional loans Olney Springs CO 1612] private guaranty-which he taken to Brooks with regards to getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all around three finalized data files so you can Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The newest promissory mention considering a signature line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off Roentgen/J Co. because standard lover off Peacock. Ramos closed the newest file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty provided next operative words:
By November 1986, financial difficulties with the project brought about Peacock to help you default for the House Government funds
“During the consideration of mortgage in the Relationship to help you Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you can for any reason be sure and you will guarantee to spend so you can Association, otherwise whomever Association commands us to pay, any indebtedness out of Borrower in order to Association confirmed because of the, or in in any manner pertaining to the mortgage (also yet not simply for extra enhances or money) and/or notice, also to manage all of the covenants and you may arrangements from Borrower present in the brand new notice otherwise any safeguards contract ranging from Borrower and you may Relationship.” The signature range at the bottom of the file delivered to this new trademark from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he’d signed the newest promissory notice: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted with the the fresh new mention and you will Family Government delivered suit to impose the latest warranty, Ramos defended on the ground that his trademark due to the fact “Pres.” indicated a purpose so you can join merely Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves really for the guarantee. At the close of all proof, the latest demonstration legal provided Domestic Federal’s motion having a led verdict, concluding it actually was bound by the brand new court’s decision in the Sebastian Global, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a word about the procedural pose of instance. The fresh new demonstration legal led a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there’s no disagreement in the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you can believing by itself bound by an early Courtroom regarding Focus choice. (Pick basically Automobile Guarantee Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite the absence of a managing appellate decision, but not, the latest legal is best into the deciding one no jury question was shown. As Ultimate Court informed me in Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new interpretation out of an authored device, while it involves what might securely be entitled questions away from truth [citation], is basically an official setting to be exercised with regards to the fundamentally recognized canons out-of translation therefore, the reason for brand new tool is given effect. . Making it solely an official form to help you interpret an authored software until the latest interpretation turns through to the latest credibility of extrinsic evidence.” (Id. at the p. 865; see together with Medical Surgery Administration, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, because the people shown little associated without conflicting extrinsic facts (see Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A good.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the newest trial legal safely would not submit the newest interpretation of the composed guaranty with the jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) As well, but not, we given that looking at judge check out the research and you may interpret new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional in the p. 891.)