Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following the demo judge directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Home Federal Discounts & Loan Organization (Family loans Parachute CO Federal) away from Ramos’s responsibility into the a consumer loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator to own House Government, discussed the new contract with Brooks and you will prepared three data-the loan modification arrangement, the newest promissory notice and also the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is actually president of the Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. was the overall lover off a restricted commitment, the fresh Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), molded accomplish this new Peacock Ridge build project. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $eight.cuatro billion to the Peacock relationship. All the four operating system.
When this occurs, Peacock owed good-sized sums when you look at the accrued appeal and had almost every other debt concerning your panels. Home Government accepted a great “work-out agreement” where they forgave all but $a hundred,000 of your own attract and you can provided to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,100. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to perform an effective promissory mention to have $150,100 protected by an individual warranty finalized from the Ramos.
Brand new exercise agreement is actually negotiated on behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. personnel. Software. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-he taken to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all about three closed data so you’re able to Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1
The latest promissory note considering a trademark line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from Roentgen/J Co. since standard spouse regarding Peacock. Ramos closed this new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guarantee incorporated the following surgical words:
Because of the November 1986, financial hardships toward opportunity brought about Peacock so you’re able to standard toward Domestic Federal loans
“In the attention of your own mortgage from the Connection to help you Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and unconditionally make sure and hope to spend in order to Relationship, otherwise whomever Relationship orders us to pay, any and all indebtedness off Borrower so you can Organization evidenced by, or even in in any manner pertaining to the borrowed funds (and additionally however simply for a lot more advances or loans) or perhaps the mention, and also to perform most of the covenants and you can plans off Borrower found in brand new mention or people cover contract anywhere between Debtor and you can Organization.” Brand new signature line towards the bottom of the file delivered to the latest signature off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he previously signed the new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted into the this new mention and House Federal brought fit to help you demand the new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor one their trademark given that “Pres.” indicated an intent to help you join simply Roentgen/J Co. and not himself privately on guarantee. In the romantic of the many research, the fresh trial judge supplied Family Federal’s activity to own a directed decision, concluding it actually was limited by the fresh court’s decision into the Sebastian Around the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a phrase in regards to the procedural present of your own instance. The fresh demo court brought a decision against Ramos, finishing there is no disagreement in the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you will believing in itself limited by an earlier Legal away from Appeal decision. (Select basically Vehicle Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a regulating appellate choice, although not, new legal was right in determining one zero jury concern are shown. Given that Ultimate Court explained inside the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation off an authored software, although it involves what might properly end up being called questions out-of facts [citation], is basically a judicial form to be worked out according to the essentially approved canons off interpretation so the purposes of the software can be provided impact. . So it is solely an official function so you’re able to translate an authored device except if brand new interpretation converts on the fresh new trustworthiness regarding extrinsic proof.” (Id. in the p. 865; pick in addition to Scientific Operations Government, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since events presented nothing associated with no contradictory extrinsic proof (pick Pacific Energy & Age. 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.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the newest demonstration legal properly refused to complete the fresh new interpretation of the written warranty toward jury. (See Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three-dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Additionally, however, i because evaluating legal look at the research and you may translate the fresh new warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at the p. 866; Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional at the p. 891.)