Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a view pursuing the demo courtroom led a verdict in favor of plaintiff Home Government Deals & Loan Relationship (Home Federal) off Ramos’s responsibility on the a personal bank loan guaranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary financing officer to possess Household Federal, negotiated brand new agreement which have Brooks and you may waiting three documents-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, new promissory mention in addition to [229 Cal
Accused Ramos was president of your own Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. try the general companion from a finite union, the latest Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), formed to-do brand new Peacock Ridge structure project. Anywhere between September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $seven.4 mil into Peacock partnership. All the five operating-system.
At that point, Peacock owed big sums when you look at the accrued attract together with almost every other debt to the the project. Family Government approved good « work-out arrangement » in which they forgave all but $a hundred,100000 of your attract and you can accessible to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,100000. In return, Peacock assured to execute a great promissory note having $150,100 secure from the a personal guaranty closed from the Ramos.
Brand new work-out arrangement is negotiated with respect to Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. employee. Application. 3d 1612] individual warranty-which he taken to Brooks for the intended purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all of the around three closed documents in order to Lynn towards December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh promissory notice offered a signature line to possess « Ronald J. Ramos, President » away from R/J Co. given that standard mate from Peacock. Ramos signed the document « R.J. Ramos, Pres. » The private warranty provided next medical words:
From the November 1986, financial hardships towards the project caused Peacock so you can default into the Household Government funds
« Inside planning of the mortgage regarding Association to Borrower, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), seriously and you can unconditionally make sure and you will hope to pay to help you Relationship, or whoever Relationship sales us to shell out, all indebtedness off Borrower so you can Organization confirmed because of the, or perhaps in any way linked to the loan (and although not simply for more advances or financing) or perhaps the mention, and also to would every covenants and you will agreements off Debtor within this new notice otherwise one protection arrangement between Debtor and Association. » Brand new trademark range in the bottom of your own document delivered to the new signature off « Ronald J. Ramos. » Rather, Ramos closed it he’d closed the promissory notice: « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. »
Whenever Peacock defaulted towards the the brand new notice and you can House Government lead match so you’re able to impose the warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to his signature just like the « Pres. » expressed an intention so you can bind only Roentgen/J Co. and never himself truly on the guaranty. From the personal of all the research, the demo legal granted Family Federal’s actions getting a directed verdict, finishing it absolutely was limited by the newest court’s decision during the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a term concerning proceeding posture of one’s case. The trial judge directed a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there clearly was no dispute inside [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and you can believing by itself bound by an early Courtroom off Desire choice. (Come across fundamentally Car Security Conversion, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in the absence of a controlling appellate decision, not, the new court are right from inside the determining you to no jury matter is showed. Due to the fact Best Judge said inside the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « New translation of a composed software, even though it comes to what can securely be entitled issues off truth [citation], is essentially a judicial mode to-be exercised with respect to the basically acknowledged canons of translation therefore, the purposes of the fresh new software can be offered impact. . So it’s entirely a judicial function so you’re able to translate a created software except if the new translation transforms up on new dependability of extrinsic research. » (Id. at p. 865; find together with Medical Procedures Administration, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application short term loans Copper Mountain. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, due to the fact events exhibited nothing associated and no conflicting extrinsic evidence (get a hold of Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A good.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh demo courtroom securely would not submit the brand new translation of your composed guaranty into the jury. (Pick Scientific Businesses Management, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, however, we while the examining court look at the evidence and you may interpret new warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at p. 891.)