Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment after the trial judge led a decision and only plaintiff Family Government Offers & Mortgage Organization (Family Government) out-of Ramos’s responsibility for the a consumer loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing administrator to possess Household Government, negotiated the newest agreement with Brooks and you can wishing about three data-the mortgage amendment agreement, brand new promissory note while the [229 Cal
Offender Ramos is actually chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california corporation. R/J Co. is actually the overall mate regarding a limited union, brand new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded to do the fresh new Peacock Ridge design enterprise. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned nearly $eight.4 billion into the Peacock relationship. Each of the four operating Mccoy loans system.
At that point, Peacock owed large amounts in accumulated attract and had other loans regarding the your panels. Household Government approved a great «work-out agreement» in which they forgave all but $one hundred,000 of the interest and you can offered to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,000. Inturn, Peacock promised to execute an excellent promissory note to own $150,one hundred thousand protected by the your own guarantee finalized from the Ramos.
The brand new exercise agreement is actually negotiated with respect to Peacock by Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual warranty-that he delivered to Brooks with regards to acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all the about three finalized data to help you Lynn to your December 18, 1986.fn. 1
This new promissory note offered a signature line to own «Ronald J. Ramos, President» out-of R/J Co. as general lover out of Peacock. Ramos signed new document «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The personal guarantee incorporated the second operative code:
By November 1986, financial hardships towards project triggered Peacock to help you default with the House Government finance
«For the believe of the financing about Connection to help you Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you can unconditionally ensure and you will hope to invest to help you Connection, otherwise whoever Organization sales us to spend, any indebtedness away from Debtor so you’re able to Connection evidenced by the, or perhaps in any way related to the mortgage (including but not limited by additional advances otherwise financing) and/or note, also to do all of the covenants and you may plans out of Borrower found in the notice otherwise any security contract anywhere between Debtor and you can Connection.» Brand new signature range towards the bottom of the file provided for this new signature out-of «Ronald J. Ramos.» Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he had closed this new promissory note: «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted to the the latest notice and Household Government delivered match to enforce the newest guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor one his signature since the «Pres.» conveyed a purpose in order to bind only Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself really on guarantee. During the romantic of all research, the newest demonstration court offered Home Federal’s motion to possess a led verdict, finishing it had been bound by brand new court’s decision in Sebastian Around the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start with a term concerning the procedural pose of situation. The fresh demonstration judge led a decision up against Ramos, concluding you will find no conflict for the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you will assuming in itself bound by a young Legal out of Notice decision. (Come across essentially Vehicles Guarantee Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a regulating appellate decision, not, this new legal was right in the determining that no jury matter was showed. Since Finest Courtroom said from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «New translation of a written means, although it concerns what can safely become named issues out-of facts [citation], is basically a judicial form is exercised with respect to the essentially recognized canons from interpretation and so the purposes of new device is considering feeling. . Therefore it is entirely an official mode so you’re able to translate a created instrument except if new interpretation transforms on the fresh trustworthiness out-of extrinsic research.» (Id. at the p. 865; look for plus Scientific Functions Management, Inc. v. National Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since parties showed nothing related no conflicting extrinsic proof (look for Pacific Gas & Age. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), this new demo courtroom properly would not complete the translation of one’s authored guaranty on jury. (Get a hold of Medical Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 892, fn.4.) Concurrently, yet not, we as the evaluating court take into account the evidence and you will translate this new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d within p. 891.)