Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment pursuing the demonstration courtroom directed a decision and only plaintiff Domestic Government Offers & Mortgage Association (House Government) out of Ramos’s liability into the a personal loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage officer to own Family Federal, negotiated the new arrangement which have Brooks and prepared about three documents-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, brand new promissory mention as well as the [229 Cal
Offender Ramos try president of your own Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. are the overall companion from a small connection, the new Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), formed to-do the Peacock Ridge structure enterprise. Between Sep 1983 and you will February 1985, plaintiff Home Government loaned almost $7.cuatro million on the Peacock partnership. Each one of the four operating system.
When this occurs, Peacock owed generous amounts from inside the accumulated desire and had almost every other personal debt concerning the your panels. Household Government acknowledged an effective “workout contract” where they forgave just about $one hundred,100000 of your attract and you may accessible to loan quick loans in Dacono Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to execute a beneficial promissory note getting $150,000 secure by a personal guaranty closed of the Ramos.
The brand new work out contract are discussed for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. staff member. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-he brought to Brooks for the purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back the around three signed files in order to Lynn toward December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The promissory mention offered a trademark line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of Roentgen/J Co. given that standard partner off Peacock. Ramos closed new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guaranty included next medical vocabulary:
Of the November 1986, financial difficulties for the enterprise caused Peacock in order to standard towards the House Federal funds
“During the planning of your own loan regarding Relationship to help you Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you may for any reason make certain and vow to spend to Organization, or anyone who Association orders me to shell out, every indebtedness from Debtor to Organization evidenced by, or in in any manner about the mortgage (as well as however simply for more advances otherwise fund) or perhaps the mention, and also to create most of the covenants and you may plans off Borrower within the fresh notice otherwise one security contract anywhere between Borrower and you can Association.” The brand new trademark range at the end of your document sent to this new signature of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it he previously signed new promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted to the brand new mention and you may Family Government introduced suit in order to demand new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor one his signature once the “Pres.” shown an intent to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. and not himself in person for the guaranty. Within romantic of all of the proof, the brand new trial court offered Family Federal’s action to own a brought decision, concluding it had been limited by this new court’s choice into the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a phrase regarding the procedural position of one’s situation. This new demo judge brought a decision facing Ramos, concluding there is certainly zero disagreement for the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you may thinking itself bound by an early on Judge from Desire choice. (Discover generally Vehicle Guarantee Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a regulating appellate choice, although not, the court are proper inside deciding you to zero jury question is displayed. As Best Legal told me during the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new translation regarding a written device, whilst it comes to what might properly feel entitled issues away from facts [citation], is largely a judicial form as worked out with regards to the essentially recognized canons out of translation therefore the purposes of the appliance may be given effect. . It is therefore only an official means so you can translate an authored means unless of course this new interpretation converts up on the fresh trustworthiness regarding extrinsic evidence.” (Id. during the p. 865; come across along with Medical Surgery Management, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as parties shown absolutely nothing associated no conflicting extrinsic research (find 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 beneficial.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), brand new demo courtroom safely would not complete the new interpretation of the composed warranty towards the jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) While doing so, however, we since the reviewing court look at the research and you will translate the brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional within p. 891.)
