Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the demo court directed a verdict in support of plaintiff Home Government Coupons & Financing Relationship (House Federal) from Ramos’s accountability for the a personal loan guarantee. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage manager getting Household Government, discussed the new agreement that have Brooks and you may wishing about three records-the borrowed funds amendment arrangement, the new promissory note together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is chairman of Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca organization. R/J Co. was the entire spouse away from a small commitment, the latest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), formed to do the fresh Peacock Ridge build investment. Ranging from September 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned almost $eight.4 mil toward Peacock relationship. All the five operating system.
When this occurs, Peacock owed good-sized figures in accrued appeal together with almost every other loans about the your panels. Home Government acknowledged a great “work out agreement” in which it forgave all but $100,one hundred thousand of your own appeal and you may wanted to loan Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock guaranteed to do a beneficial promissory notice to possess $150,000 secure because of the a personal guaranty finalized by Ramos.
The new work-out agreement was discussed on the behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. worker. App. 3d 1612] private warranty-that he taken to Brooks with regards to acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all around three signed files so you’re able to Lynn into the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh new promissory note considering a trademark line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” away from Roentgen/J Co. as general mate off Peacock. Ramos closed brand new file “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty provided another operative words:
Because of the November 1986, financial hardships into enterprise triggered Peacock to standard on Household Government finance
“In the thought of your own financing on the Relationship to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you will for any reason be certain that and you may hope to spend to help you Relationship, otherwise whomever Relationship purchases us to shell out, any indebtedness of Debtor to help you Association evidenced by, or perhaps in in any manner linked to the borrowed funds (and additionally however limited to more enhances or loans) or perhaps the note, and create every covenants and arrangements out of Borrower present in the brand new notice or any security contract anywhere between Debtor and Relationship.” The fresh new signature range at the bottom of your own file sent to the fresh new trademark away from “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos closed it as he previously closed new promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted towards the the fresh new note and House Federal introduced suit so you’re able to demand the guaranty, Ramos defended on the ground one to his signature due to the fact “Pres.” conveyed a purpose in order to join only Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves myself on guarantee. From the intimate of all of the facts, the demo court provided Home Federal’s activity getting a directed verdict, finishing it was limited by new court’s choice inside the Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start with a term concerning proceeding pose of situation. The brand new demonstration courtroom directed a decision against Ramos, concluding there is no conflict during the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational facts and thinking itself limited by an early on Legal out of Notice decision. (Pick basically Auto Collateral Conversion, Inc. v. Premium 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 decision, although not, the fresh new legal is proper for the determining one to zero jury question was exhibited. Given that Best Legal explained when you look at the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “This new translation of a created tool, even though it involves what would securely feel named issues away from truth [citation], is essentially a judicial function become exercised depending on the fundamentally accepted canons off translation and so the reason for this new software are provided perception. . Therefore it is entirely a judicial function to understand a written software unless the brand new translation converts through to the new credibility of extrinsic evidence.” (Id. on p. 865; find together with Medical Surgery Management, Inc. v. National Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because the activities shown absolutely nothing relevant with no conflicting extrinsic research (select 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, 40 An effective.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the trial court inspect site safely refused to fill in new interpretation of your created guaranty toward jury. (Look for Medical Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Simultaneously, not, we since evaluating courtroom look at the proof and you will understand brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Medical Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional from the p. 891.)