Accused Ronald J. Ramos appeals a judgment following the demonstration legal brought a verdict and only plaintiff Domestic Government Offers & Loan Organization (Home Federal) off Ramos’s accountability towards the a personal bank loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary financing administrator getting Home Federal, negotiated brand new agreement which have Brooks and prepared around three data files-the mortgage amendment contract, new promissory notice while the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Organization (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. are the overall partner away from a limited connection, the latest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), molded to do new Peacock Ridge framework venture. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $eight.cuatro billion to the Peacock relationship. Each of the five operating system.
At that point, Peacock due generous sums when you look at the accrued appeal along with most other obligations in connection with your panels. Domestic Government recognized a beneficial «work out agreement» where they forgave just about $100,one hundred thousand of one’s interest and you may agreed to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In return, Peacock promised to do a promissory notice to have $150,100 safeguarded of the an individual warranty signed by Ramos.
The new work-out contract was discussed on the part of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. personnel. Application. three-dimensional 1612] private guaranty-he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned most of the around three closed documents to Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The promissory mention offered a trademark line for «Ronald J. Ramos, President» of R/J Co. while the standard companion out-of Peacock. Ramos finalized the brand new file «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The private warranty integrated next surgical code:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties into the investment brought about Peacock so you’re able to standard into the Family Government funds
«Into the believe of your financing regarding Organization to help you Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you may for any reason make sure and you can promise to invest so you’re able to Relationship, or whomever Association requests us to shell out, all indebtedness off Debtor to Connection confirmed by, or perhaps in in any manner associated with the loan (and although not limited by more advances or money) or perhaps the mention, and carry out all of the covenants and you can agreements off Debtor within brand new note or one protection agreement between Debtor and you will Association.» This new trademark line at the bottom of the document taken to the new signature out of «Ronald J. Ramos.» As an alternative, Ramos finalized it as he’d finalized the brand new promissory note: «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.»
When Peacock defaulted on the fresh new mention and Family Government lead fit so you can impose the new warranty, Ramos defended on the floor one to his trademark once the «Pres.» indicated a purpose so you can bind merely Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves really on the warranty. Within close of the many evidence, this new demonstration courtroom supplied House Federal’s action to have a brought decision, concluding it actually was limited by the new court’s choice into the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a term concerning proceeding present of your own instance. The brand new demonstration court directed a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there was zero disagreement in the [229 Cal. Application. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you can thinking by itself bound by an early on Judge regarding Notice decision. (Find basically Automobile Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a managing appellate choice, yet loans in Ignacio not, the fresh court was right into the deciding you to definitely zero jury question try demonstrated. Just like the Best Judge told me during the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «This new translation regarding a written software, while it pertains to what would safely getting called questions of facts [citation], is largely an official form getting exercised with respect to the basically recognized canons of interpretation therefore, the reason for the latest means are given impact. . So it is exclusively a judicial form to help you understand a written device until the newest interpretation turns through to this new trustworthiness out-of extrinsic facts.» (Id. within p. 865; pick and additionally Medical Businesses Government, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, since parties shown little relevant and no conflicting extrinsic proof (find Pacific Energy & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A beneficial.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), brand new demo judge securely would not fill out the newest translation of written guaranty with the jury. (See Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d at the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Concurrently, however, i given that evaluating judge consider the proof and you will understand the fresh new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at the p. 866; Medical Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional at the p. 891.)
