Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the demo court led a verdict in favor of plaintiff Domestic Federal Offers & Loan Organization (Home Government) out-of Ramos’s responsibility to your a consumer loan guarantee. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan administrator to possess Family Government, negotiated the fresh new agreement which have Brooks and you can wishing around three data-the mortgage amendment contract, the latest promissory mention in addition to [229 Cal

Accused Ramos try president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca agency. R/J Co. are the entire lover out of a small union, the fresh Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), designed to accomplish new Peacock Ridge design endeavor. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Family Government loaned almost $seven.4 billion into Peacock commitment. Each one of the four os.

When this occurs, Peacock due reasonable figures during the accumulated attract and had most other financial obligation to the your panels. Family Government acknowledged an effective “work out contract” where it forgave all but $a hundred,100 of appeal and wanted to financing Peacock an additional $fifty,one hundred thousand. Inturn, Peacock assured to execute an excellent promissory note to own $150,000 secure from the a personal guarantee closed from the Ramos.

The fresh new work-out contract is actually discussed on the behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. personnel. Software. three dimensional 1612] individual warranty-he delivered to Brooks for the purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all of the about three finalized data to help you Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

The fresh new promissory notice considering a trademark range for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” regarding Roentgen/J Co. as general spouse from Peacock. Ramos finalized new file “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty included next operative vocabulary:

Of the November 1986, financial difficulties on the venture triggered Peacock to default towards the Home Government loans

“In thought of your own loan regarding Association so you’re able to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), positively and you can unconditionally make certain and hope to spend to Connection, or whomever Association instructions me to spend, every indebtedness out-of Debtor so you’re able to Organization evidenced by, or even in in whatever way regarding the loan (including yet not restricted to even more improves or finance) or the notice, and carry out all covenants and you can arrangements away from Borrower contained in the newest notice otherwise people cover agreement ranging from Debtor and you can Relationship.” The brand new signature line at the end of your file taken to the fresh new trademark out-of “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it he had finalized the fresh new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted with the this new note and Home Government introduced fit so you can demand the fresh new guarantee https://paydayloancolorado.net/larkspur/, Ramos defended on the floor that his trademark as “Pres.” conveyed an intent in order to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself individually for the guarantee. During the close of all evidence, the newest demo judge provided Household Federal’s activity to own a directed decision, concluding it absolutely was limited by the brand new court’s choice into the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I start out with a keyword about the proceeding pose of instance. The demo courtroom directed a verdict against Ramos, concluding you will find no disagreement within the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational evidence and you will trusting in itself limited by an early Judge off Appeal choice. (Look for fundamentally Auto Guarantee Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a managing appellate choice, yet not, the fresh new legal is best during the choosing you to definitely zero jury question try exhibited. Given that Supreme Courtroom told me into the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new translation of a composed tool, even though it concerns what can safely feel called issues regarding fact [citation], is essentially an official mode to get resolved according to essentially approved canons from interpretation and so the purposes of brand new device can be considering impression. . It is therefore solely a judicial form to understand an authored appliance unless of course the fresh interpretation converts abreast of this new dependability off extrinsic evidence.” (Id. at the p. 865; discover in addition to Scientific Businesses Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as the parties demonstrated nothing relevant no conflicting extrinsic proof (get a hold of Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the demo court securely would not complete the interpretation of your own authored guarantee for the jury. (See Scientific Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) On the other hand, yet not, i as the examining courtroom look at the proof and you can translate the brand new warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional at p. 891.)