Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment following the demo judge brought a decision in support of plaintiff Home Federal Offers & Loan Relationship (Domestic Government) regarding Ramos’s responsibility towards a personal loan guarantee. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing manager for Domestic Federal, negotiated the latest agreement with Brooks and you will waiting three files-the loan amendment arrangement, the brand new promissory mention and the [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos try president of your own Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california agency. R/J Co. was the entire spouse regarding a restricted partnership, the brand new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), shaped to accomplish new Peacock Ridge framework endeavor. Anywhere between Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $eight.4 mil for the Peacock connection. Each of the five operating system.
At that time, Peacock due substantial figures during the accrued focus and had almost every other loans in connection with the project. Home Federal acknowledged good “workout arrangement” where they forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of your own focus and you will offered to loan Peacock a supplementary $fifty,100. In exchange, Peacock promised to perform an excellent promissory notice having $150,one hundred thousand protected by the an individual guarantee signed because of the Ramos.
The latest workout arrangement is actually discussed on behalf of Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. staff. Application. three dimensional 1612] individual warranty-that he brought to Brooks for the purpose of getting Ramos’s signature. Brooks came back all of the about three signed documents so you can Lynn towards December 18, 1986.fn. 1
This new promissory notice provided a trademark line getting “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of R/J Co. once the standard mate of Peacock. Ramos finalized this new document “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private guarantee included next operative code:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties to your endeavor triggered Peacock so you’re able to default to your Household Federal fund
“Within the attention of your mortgage from the Organization to Debtor, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will for any reason be certain that and you may hope to pay to Relationship, otherwise whoever Relationship purchases us to spend, any and all indebtedness out-of Debtor to help you Association confirmed by, or even in in whatever way regarding the borrowed funds (and additionally however restricted to additional improves otherwise finance) or even the mention, and manage all covenants and you may arrangements away from Borrower within the new note or people protection arrangement anywhere between Borrower and you may Relationship.” This new signature range at the end of file sent to the fresh trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Rather, Ramos finalized it as he previously finalized the new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted towards the the newest notice and you will Household Government introduced suit in order to demand the new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground you to definitely their signature once the “Pres.” expressed an intent in order to bind simply Roentgen/J Co. and never himself yourself for the warranty. During the romantic of all the research, this new demo judge supplied Household Federal’s actions to own a directed decision, concluding it had been limited by the court’s decision in Sebastian Globally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start off with a term about the proceeding position of one’s case. The newest demo judge led a decision against Ramos, finishing there is certainly no disagreement in [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you will trusting in itself bound by an early Judge out of Desire choice. (Look for basically Vehicles Collateral Conversion, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a regulating appellate choice, yet not, the newest courtroom are proper when you look at the determining one zero jury matter was displayed. As the Best Court told me from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d americash loans Bethune 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh translation regarding an authored device, whilst it comes to what can safely feel entitled concerns out of fact [citation], is largely a judicial function become exercised with regards to the basically accepted canons of translation and so the reason for brand new means is given effect. . So it’s exclusively a judicial setting to help you understand a created appliance unless of course the latest translation transforms upon the brand new dependability regarding extrinsic facts.” (Id. within p. 865; come across also Medical Surgery Government, Inc. v. National Health Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, due to the fact people showed nothing related with no conflicting extrinsic research (select Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A beneficial.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), this new demonstration courtroom safely refused to fill out the fresh translation of authored warranty on the jury. (Come across Medical Functions Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d from the p. 892, fn.cuatro.) While doing so, yet not, we because the looking at judge consider the research and you can interpret brand new guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Businesses Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional in the p. 891.)