Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment pursuing the trial judge brought a verdict and only plaintiff Family Federal Coupons & Financing Association (Home Federal) off Ramos’s liability on the a personal loan guaranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major loan administrator to own Home Federal, negotiated the brand new arrangement with Brooks and waiting three files-the mortgage amendment arrangement, the fresh promissory mention together with [229 Cal
Offender Ramos are president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. are the overall companion away from a limited relationship, the newest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), designed accomplish the newest Peacock Ridge structure investment. Between Sep 1983 and February 1985, plaintiff Domestic Government loaned nearly $7.4 million into the Peacock commitment. Each one of the four operating-system.
At that point, Peacock owed substantial sums inside the accrued attract along with almost every other personal debt concerning the project. Home Federal approved an effective “work out agreement” where it forgave all but $100,000 of one’s attract and provided to financing Peacock an extra $fifty,100. In exchange, Peacock guaranteed to do a beneficial promissory mention getting $150,100000 covered of the your own guaranty finalized because of the Ramos.
Brand new workout contract is actually discussed for Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. worker. Application. 3d 1612] individual guarantee-he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back most of the around three closed files to Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The newest promissory note provided a signature range having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” of R/J Co. while the standard partner out of Peacock. Ramos closed the document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty provided another operative language:
From the November 1986, financial hardships on project caused Peacock to help you standard on Domestic Federal finance
“For the thought of one’s financing on Relationship in order to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you will unconditionally guarantee and you will promise to blow so you’re able to Connection, or the person who Organization sales me to shell out, every indebtedness regarding Debtor to help you Association confirmed because of the, or in any way about the loan (and additionally yet not limited by a lot more advances otherwise money) and/or mention, and to do all the covenants and you may arrangements of Debtor contained in this new note otherwise one cover arrangement anywhere between Debtor and you will Association.” The signature line at the end of your own document sent to the newest signature from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos signed it he previously finalized the newest promissory notice: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted for the the latest notice and you can Domestic Federal lead suit in order to demand the new guarantee, Ramos defended on to the floor one their trademark because “Pres.” conveyed an intention to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. and not himself personally towards warranty. On personal of all research, the demo court supplied Household Federal’s actions to have a directed decision, finishing it had been bound by the fresh new court’s choice into the Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start out with a keyword about the procedural present of situation. New trial legal brought a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there’s zero conflict for the [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational facts and thinking alone limited by an earlier Judge regarding Desire choice. (Find generally Auto Collateral Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Judge (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a managing appellate decision, although not, brand new courtroom is correct inside the deciding you to no jury matter is demonstrated. Given that Ultimate Legal said into the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The new interpretation of an authored device, whilst it relates to what would safely feel named questions of facts [citation], is largely a judicial means to-be exercised with regards to the basically accepted canons off translation therefore, the reason for the newest software tends to be given impression. . It is therefore only a judicial setting to translate a written appliance except if this new translation turns abreast of the fresh new credibility of extrinsic facts.” (Id. during the p. 865; look for and Medical Operations Management, Inc. v. Federal Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since the parties shown nothing associated without contradictory extrinsic proof (see Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A beneficial.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh new demonstration court properly would not fill out the new interpretation of the authored warranty into jury. (Get a hold of Medical Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.4.) At the same time, however, we since the reviewing court look at the evidence and you will understand the new guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; americash loans Pine Valley Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d on p. 891.)
