Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view pursuing the demo courtroom led a decision and only plaintiff House Government Savings & Loan Association (Household Federal) out-of Ramos’s liability for the an unsecured loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary financing officer to possess Family Federal, discussed the fresh new contract that have Brooks and you may prepared three data files-the loan modification contract, this new promissory mention together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try president of your Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca business. R/J Co. is actually all round partner away from a limited relationship, the brand new Peacock Ridge Business (Peacock), formed to do the Peacock Ridge structure project. Anywhere between September 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $seven.4 million to the Peacock partnership. Each of the four operating system.
At that time, Peacock owed good amounts during the accumulated appeal together with almost every other loans concerning the your panels. House Federal recognized an effective “work out arrangement” in which they forgave all but $a hundred,one hundred thousand of interest loans in Lincoln Park and you may accessible to mortgage Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. Inturn, Peacock promised to execute an effective promissory notice to possess $150,000 secured of the an individual guaranty signed by Ramos.
This new exercise arrangement was negotiated on behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, an R/J Co. employee. App. three-dimensional 1612] personal guaranty-that he taken to Brooks for the purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back most of the around three finalized records in order to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step one
The fresh new promissory mention given a trademark line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” away from R/J Co. as general partner out of Peacock. Ramos finalized brand new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee integrated the following medical vocabulary:
By November 1986, financial hardships to your investment triggered Peacock so you’re able to default towards House Federal financing
“Into the planning of your loan on Association to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and unconditionally make sure and vow to blow in order to Relationship, or anyone who Connection instructions us to pay, any and all indebtedness out of Debtor so you’re able to Connection evidenced by the, or perhaps in in any manner connected with the mortgage (along with however limited by a lot more enhances otherwise funds) or even the mention, in order to would all of the covenants and you will preparations out-of Borrower within the fresh notice otherwise people safeguards agreement anywhere between Debtor and you will Organization.” The brand new signature line in the bottom of your file sent to the latest signature out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos finalized it as he previously closed the new promissory note: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted with the the newest notice and you may Home Federal delivered fit so you can enforce this new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the ground you to his trademark because the “Pres.” conveyed an intent so you’re able to join just R/J Co. rather than himself myself into the guarantee. On personal of all research, new trial judge offered Home Federal’s motion getting a brought decision, finishing it was limited by the fresh new court’s decision in Sebastian In the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I focus on a keyword regarding the procedural position of your circumstances. The newest demo judge directed a decision facing Ramos, finishing there was zero dispute inside [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and believing in itself bound by an early Courtroom out of Focus choice. (Pick fundamentally Auto Collateral Sales, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a regulating appellate decision, yet not, the judge are proper in the choosing one to zero jury concern are shown. As Finest Court explained within the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new translation regarding a written device, although it involves what might securely become entitled questions out of fact [citation], is largely a judicial means getting worked out according to the basically approved canons of translation so the reason for the brand new software may be considering perception. . Therefore it is solely a judicial mode so you can understand an authored device unless the fresh translation converts upon brand new dependability of extrinsic research.” (Id. from the p. 865; get a hold of along with Medical Businesses Management, Inc. v. National Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the functions exhibited little associated and no contradictory extrinsic research (discover Pacific Fuel & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An excellent.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the latest demo legal properly refused to fill out the latest interpretation of your composed guaranty towards jury. (Come across Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional within p. 892, fn.4.) At the same time, although not, we since evaluating legal consider the proof and you can understand the warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional from the p. 891.)