Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom after the demonstration court led a decision and only plaintiff Household Government Offers & Mortgage Association (House Federal) regarding Ramos’s responsibility to the a consumer loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer having Home Federal, discussed the latest agreement that have Brooks and you will waiting around three documents-the loan amendment agreement, the fresh promissory notice additionally the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos was chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. are the overall partner from a limited union, brand new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), formed to complete the latest Peacock Ridge design venture. Ranging from September 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned almost $seven.cuatro mil to your Peacock union. Each of the four os.
At that point, Peacock owed substantial sums inside accrued desire together with most other obligations regarding the your panels. Home Federal approved an effective “workout contract” where it forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of attention and you will provided to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,000. In return, Peacock promised to do a beneficial promissory notice to possess $150,one hundred thousand secure by an individual warranty closed by Ramos.
The brand new workout agreement is discussed on the behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. staff. Software. three dimensional 1612] private guaranty-that he brought to Brooks for the purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned the about three closed files to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The fresh promissory notice offered a signature range to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of Roentgen/J Co. as general spouse regarding Peacock. Ramos closed the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee integrated next operative code:
Because of the November 1986, financial hardships into the venture triggered Peacock to default for the Domestic Government funds
“For the consideration of the loan throughout the Organization in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you may unconditionally ensure and you will hope to expend in order to Relationship, otherwise whomever Organization commands me to pay, any and all indebtedness from Borrower so you can Association evidenced from the, or perhaps in in whatever way related to the mortgage (plus but not limited to even more improves or fund) or the notice, also to would all of the covenants and you may arrangements off Borrower contained in the fresh new notice or any cover arrangement anywhere between Debtor and Connection.” The fresh trademark line at the end of one’s file provided for the latest trademark off “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos signed it as he had finalized the brand new promissory notice: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted on brand new notice and you can Family Government put match to demand new warranty, Ramos defended on the ground one to their trademark while the “Pres.” indicated an intent to help you bind just Roentgen/J Co. rather than themselves myself on the warranty. In the romantic of the many facts, the demonstration legal supplied Domestic Federal’s actions having a brought verdict, finishing it had been limited by brand new court’s choice into the Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a phrase concerning proceeding posture of the situation. The brand new demo judge directed a verdict facing Ramos, finishing there clearly was no disagreement for the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational facts and thinking alone limited by a young Legal away from Focus choice. (Get a hold of generally Auto Collateral Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in its lack of a managing appellate choice, however, the judge is right when you look at the choosing you to definitely zero jury question is actually exhibited. Because the Ultimate Judge explained inside Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The latest interpretation of a written tool, whilst it comes to what might properly feel called concerns out of reality [citation], is essentially an official means is exercised according to the essentially acknowledged canons out of interpretation therefore the purposes of the fresh new tool are considering perception. . So it is solely a judicial form so you’re able to interpret an authored software except if brand new translation transforms on this new dependability away from extrinsic research.” (Id. during the p. 865; come across plus Medical Businesses Management, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as the activities displayed little relevant and no conflicting extrinsic facts (look for Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An effective.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), this new demo legal safely would not fill in the latest translation of one’s created guarantee on the jury. (Discover Scientific Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d on p. 892, fn.cuatro.) In addition, yet not, we while the evaluating court take into account the facts and you will translate brand new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d from the p. 891.)