Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment following the demonstration court led a verdict in support of plaintiff Domestic Government Coupons & Mortgage Relationship (Household Government) out of Ramos’s accountability towards the a personal loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan officer for Domestic Federal, discussed new arrangement that have Brooks and you will waiting about three data files-the borrowed funds amendment arrangement, brand new promissory note together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is actually chairman of one’s Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca organization. R/J Co. is actually the entire mate off a finite commitment, the fresh Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), designed to complete the fresh Peacock Ridge structure opportunity. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Home Federal loaned almost $7.4 million into Peacock relationship. All the five os.
At that time, Peacock owed large figures inside accumulated focus and had almost every other financial obligation in connection with the project. House Federal acknowledged an effective “work out contract” where they forgave just about $a hundred,100000 of desire and you may agreed to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,000. In return, Peacock assured to execute a beneficial promissory notice having $150,100 secured of the your own guarantee finalized because of the Ramos.
Brand new work-out agreement is actually negotiated on behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. personnel. Software. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back every around three closed files so you can Lynn towards December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The promissory note offered a signature line to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off Roentgen/J Co. since general lover of Peacock. Ramos signed the latest file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty included the second medical words:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties into enterprise caused Peacock to help you standard for the Household Federal money
“In the planning of financing on Organization in order to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you can unconditionally be certain that and you will promise to pay in order to Connection, or the person who Connection orders me to pay, any and all indebtedness from Debtor so you’re able to Association evidenced because of the, or in in any manner about the loan (and additionally yet not simply for a lot more enhances or fund) or the notice, in https://paydayloancolorado.net/brandon/ order to carry out all the covenants and you can arrangements out-of Debtor within the new note or people safety contract between Debtor and you may Relationship.” This new trademark range towards the bottom of document delivered to the newest signature regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it as he’d signed the latest promissory note: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted with the brand new note and you may House Federal produced fit to impose new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the ground one their trademark due to the fact “Pres.” shown an intent so you’re able to bind only Roentgen/J Co. rather than themselves actually to your guaranty. At romantic of all the facts, brand new demonstration court granted Family Federal’s actions to have a brought verdict, finishing it actually was bound by the fresh court’s decision inside the Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start off with a word concerning proceeding present of your instance. The latest demo legal directed a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there’s no conflict for the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you may assuming alone limited by a young Courtroom off Attention decision. (Select generally Vehicle Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a regulating appellate decision, however, the latest court try proper from inside the deciding that zero jury concern is demonstrated. Just like the Ultimate Courtroom informed me within the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new interpretation out of a composed tool, although it pertains to what would properly be named questions out of truth [citation], is largely an official mode become resolved with respect to the generally recognized canons out-of translation therefore, the reason for the newest software can be given feeling. . Therefore it is only a judicial mode to help you translate an authored instrument unless of course new interpretation transforms through to the new trustworthiness out-of extrinsic proof.” (Id. at p. 865; discover along with Scientific Surgery Management, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because the people showed absolutely nothing relevant with no conflicting extrinsic research (discover Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A.L.R.3d 1373]), the newest demonstration judge securely would not fill out brand new interpretation of created warranty towards jury. (See Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.4.) Concurrently, not, we given that reviewing court check out the research and you can interpret the fresh new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at the p. 866; Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional in the p. 891.)