Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom pursuing the demo courtroom led a verdict in favor of plaintiff Household Government Discounts & Mortgage Relationship (Home Government) off Ramos’s responsibility to your a personal bank loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan administrator for House Federal, discussed the arrangement having Brooks and you will wishing three files-the mortgage modification contract, the promissory mention while the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is actually president of Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california organization. R/J Co. was the overall spouse from a limited relationship, the Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), designed doing brand new Peacock Ridge design investment. Ranging from September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Domestic Federal loaned nearly $7.4 mil towards Peacock partnership. All the five operating system.
At that point, Peacock due big sums into the accrued attract along with most other loans regarding the the project. Domestic Federal accepted a great “work-out agreement” in which they forgave all but $100,100 of your focus and agreed to loan Peacock an extra $50,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock guaranteed to do good promissory note to possess $150,100 covered by your own guarantee closed because of the Ramos.
New workout agreement is discussed for Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. staff. Software. 3d 1612] individual warranty-which he taken to Brooks for the purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned every three finalized data so you’re able to Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The latest promissory note considering a trademark range to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. just like the standard spouse off Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guarantee included next surgical vocabulary:
By the November 1986, financial hardships to your investment triggered Peacock to help you default towards the Domestic Federal money
“In believe of mortgage regarding Organization to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you will unconditionally make sure and you may pledge to invest to help you Connection, otherwise anyone who Organization requests me to pay, every indebtedness regarding Borrower in order to Connection evidenced of the, or even in any way related to the loan (in addition to yet not simply for extra improves otherwise financing) or even the note, in order to manage all of the covenants and you may preparations out of Debtor present in the newest notice or one coverage contract anywhere between Debtor and Connection.” This new trademark line in the bottom of file delivered to the fresh new trademark of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos closed it he previously signed the promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted toward the brand new notice and you may House Federal produced fit so you can enforce new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his trademark as “Pres.” expressed an intent to help you bind just R/J Co. and not himself personally toward guarantee. In the romantic of the many proof, the newest demonstration court supplied Household Federal’s action to own a led verdict, concluding it had been limited by the brand new court’s choice for the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a word concerning the procedural present of your instance. The fresh new demonstration judge directed a decision up against Ramos, finishing there is certainly zero conflict in the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you can believing in itself limited by an earlier Court away from Focus decision. (Look for basically Auto Collateral Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a regulating appellate choice, not, the fresh new judge are right in the choosing you to no jury question is actually demonstrated. As the Best Court told me within the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The brand new translation out of a written tool, although it comes to what might securely getting titled issues out-of facts [citation], is essentially an official form is exercised according to the basically recognized canons from translation so that the reason for the fresh new tool is provided perception. . So it is only an official form to help you understand a written software unless of course the brand new translation converts on brand new credibility away from extrinsic research.” (Id. in the p. 865; look for in addition to Scientific Procedures Administration, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as the activities displayed little associated and no contradictory extrinsic evidence (find Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. loan places Broomfield v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A.L.Roentgen.3d 1373]), the demonstration judge safely would not submit brand new interpretation of the created guarantee into the jury. (Look for Medical Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional in the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Simultaneously, not, we given that examining legal check out the evidence and translate this new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d on p. 891.)