Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment adopting the demo judge brought a decision and only plaintiff Household Federal Offers & Mortgage Association (Domestic Government) out of Ramos’s liability into the a consumer loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage officer to own Domestic Federal, discussed the newest agreement which have Brooks and you can waiting three data-the borrowed funds modification contract, new promissory notice in addition to [229 Cal
Accused Ramos are president of the Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a ca enterprise. R/J Co. was all round spouse out-of a limited connection, this new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), molded to do this new Peacock Ridge design enterprise. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you can March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned nearly $7.cuatro million into Peacock union. All the five os.
At that time, Peacock owed nice figures in the accrued notice together with almost every other financial obligation regarding the the project. Household Government acknowledged an effective “exercise agreement” in which it forgave just about $100,000 of your attract and you will offered to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In return, Peacock promised to perform a beneficial promissory mention to own $150,100000 shielded from the your own warranty signed by the Ramos.
The newest work out agreement 3 month payday loans Brookside no credit check was negotiated for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. staff member. Software. three dimensional 1612] private warranty-that he taken to Brooks for the purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned the about three finalized records in order to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The fresh promissory notice provided a trademark line for “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of Roentgen/J Co. due to the fact general spouse out of Peacock. Ramos finalized the brand new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty integrated the next surgical code:
Of the November 1986, financial difficulties with the investment caused Peacock in order to default on the Family Federal money
“Inside thought of one’s financing on Organization so you’re able to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you may unconditionally ensure and pledge to blow so you can Connection, otherwise the person who Relationship instructions me to spend, any indebtedness off Borrower so you can Relationship confirmed from the, or even in in any manner linked to the borrowed funds (as well as although not simply for extra advances or funds) or perhaps the notice, and also to manage all of the covenants and you can plans regarding Borrower within new note otherwise any safeguards contract ranging from Debtor and you can Relationship.” The latest trademark range towards the bottom of document delivered to the trademark from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it he had finalized the promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted to the new note and you may Domestic Government lead fit so you’re able to enforce the fresh guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor one to his signature since the “Pres.” conveyed an intent in order to bind only R/J Co. and not themselves actually towards the guarantee. During the personal of the many facts, this new demonstration court offered Home Federal’s actions to have a directed verdict, finishing it had been bound by the newest court’s decision during the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I begin with a keyword regarding the proceeding pose of one’s circumstances. New demonstration court led a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there was no dispute inside [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational proof and you will assuming alone bound by an early Legal off Interest choice. (Look for fundamentally Auto Security Conversion process, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a managing appellate decision, however, brand new legal try right into the determining that no jury matter is actually exhibited. Because the Finest Judge informed me inside the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The new translation from a created device, while it pertains to what would safely be called concerns away from truth [citation], is largely an official function are worked out depending on the fundamentally recognized canons regarding interpretation and so the purposes of the new tool is generally given feeling. . So it’s solely an official form so you can translate a composed software unless the newest interpretation transforms through to the new dependability out-of extrinsic proof.” (Id. at the p. 865; discover and Scientific Operations Government, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, once the activities demonstrated little relevant and no conflicting extrinsic facts (see Pacific Gasoline & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A beneficial.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), brand new demonstration court properly would not fill out the fresh interpretation of your created guarantee towards the jury. (Look for Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d from the p. 892, fn.4.) On top of that, not, we since the reviewing legal consider the research and you will understand the brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional within p. 891.)