Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom following demo court led a verdict in support of plaintiff Home Federal Discounts & Mortgage Relationship (Domestic Federal) out of Ramos’s liability to the a consumer loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer to own Home Government, discussed the latest arrangement having Brooks and wishing around three documents-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, the brand new promissory notice while the [229 Cal

Accused Ramos try chairman of Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. are the overall companion regarding a restricted connection, new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), formed accomplish this new Peacock Ridge design investment. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Home Government loaned almost $seven.4 million into the Peacock commitment. Each of the five operating system.

At that time, Peacock due reasonable amounts in the accumulated attention together with most other debt regarding the the project. Home Government acknowledged a good “work-out arrangement” where it forgave all but $a hundred,100 of one’s desire and accessible to financing Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100000. In exchange, Peacock promised to do a great promissory mention getting $150,100 secured from the a personal guarantee finalized by the Ramos.

The fresh new workout agreement try negotiated on the behalf of Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic Roentgen/J Co. personnel. App. three-dimensional 1612] personal guarantee-which he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all of the around three finalized files in order to Lynn toward December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The fresh new promissory notice offered a trademark range getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” away from Roentgen/J Co. as standard companion regarding Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee provided next surgical vocabulary:

From the payday loan Eckley November 1986, financial hardships into opportunity brought about Peacock in order to default into Domestic Government fund

“Into the idea of loan from the Organization so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you may for any reason be certain that and you may vow to blow in order to Organization, otherwise whoever Association commands us to pay, any and all indebtedness regarding Debtor so you can Connection confirmed of the, or even in in whatever way linked to the loan (and yet not restricted to more improves otherwise loans) and/or note, in order to do all the covenants and you can arrangements out-of Borrower present in the fresh mention or people security contract anywhere between Debtor and you will Relationship.” The newest trademark line towards the bottom of file delivered to the fresh new signature away from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos closed it as he had closed new promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted toward brand new notice and you will House Federal put match to help you demand new warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor that their trademark just like the “Pres.” shown an intent to bind only Roentgen/J Co. and never himself yourself toward warranty. At the close of all of the facts, the fresh trial courtroom granted House Federal’s activity to possess a brought decision, finishing it actually was limited by this new court’s decision into the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I start off with a word concerning proceeding pose of one’s circumstances. The fresh trial judge directed a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there is zero argument inside [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you will thinking by itself limited by an early Court out-of Attention decision. (Pick fundamentally Vehicles Guarantee Transformation, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a regulating appellate choice, however, brand new court is actually best within the determining one to no jury question try presented. Once the Best Judge told me inside Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new translation off a composed tool, even though it involves what might securely feel called inquiries off truth [citation], is basically an official setting becoming worked out depending on the generally recognized canons of interpretation and so the purposes of new appliance may be considering impact. . It is therefore entirely a judicial form to help you understand a created appliance unless the latest translation converts on brand new dependability out-of extrinsic proof.” (Id. during the p. 865; pick and Medical Surgery Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the people exhibited little related with no contradictory extrinsic facts (pick Pacific Gasoline & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty Good.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the new demo courtroom safely refused to complete new interpretation of composed guarantee into jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) At exactly the same time, but not, we just like the examining legal look at the research and you can translate the latest warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Medical Procedures Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional within p. 891.)