Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment adopting the trial judge brought a verdict and only plaintiff Home Federal Deals & Financing Association (Family Federal) away from Ramos’s liability for the a personal loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a major financing manager to own Family Government, negotiated new agreement having Brooks and you can waiting three documents-the loan amendment contract, new promissory mention together with [229 Cal
Defendant Ramos is chairman of Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca enterprise. R/J Co. are the overall mate away from a limited commitment, the newest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), shaped to accomplish the new Peacock Ridge construction venture. Between Sep 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Household Government loaned almost $eight.4 million toward Peacock partnership. Each of the five os.
When this occurs, Peacock owed large sums inside accumulated desire along with most other financial obligation concerning the project. Home Government accepted a beneficial “work-out arrangement” in which it forgave just about $100,100 of focus and you will accessible to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. Inturn, Peacock assured to execute a good promissory note getting $150,000 covered because of the a personal warranty signed of the Ramos.
The new work out agreement is actually discussed on behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. personnel. Software. three dimensional 1612] individual guarantee-which he taken to Brooks for the true purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned most of the three closed documents to help you Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The fresh promissory notice offered a trademark line to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off Roentgen/J Co. since the general companion regarding Peacock. Ramos finalized the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal warranty included another surgical words:
By the November 1986, financial difficulties into the enterprise brought about Peacock so you can default with the Home Government finance
“Inside the said of the financing in the Connection in order to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and you may for any reason verify and hope to blow to help you Organization, otherwise whomever Organization instructions us to spend, every indebtedness out of Debtor to help you Organization confirmed by, or even in in whatever way pertaining to the borrowed funds (together with although not restricted to most enhances or money) or even the mention, also to carry out all covenants and you may preparations from Debtor present in brand new notice otherwise any coverage agreement ranging from Borrower and Association.” The fresh new signature range in the bottom of file delivered to the trademark out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he previously signed new promissory mention: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”
Whenever Peacock defaulted towards the brand new note and you can Home Government brought suit so you can demand the brand new guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one to his signature while the “Pres.” expressed an intention so you’re able to bind merely Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves directly on warranty. Within close of all the evidence, the newest trial court provided Household Federal’s action to possess a directed decision, finishing it was bound by the latest court’s decision into the Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start out with a keyword regarding the procedural present of one’s circumstances. The fresh new trial court directed a verdict against Ramos, finishing there clearly was no dispute during the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you can thinking by itself bound by a young Legal from Notice decision. (Discover basically Auto Security Transformation, 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 choice, yet not, new legal are correct during the choosing that zero jury question is actually presented. Just like the Ultimate Legal told me for the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, bad credit loans in Keenesburg,CO 402 P.2d 839], “New translation regarding an authored software, while it concerns what can properly getting called inquiries regarding reality [citation], is basically a judicial setting become resolved according to the basically recognized canons of translation so the reason for the fresh new software can be provided impact. . So it is solely a judicial form to help you understand an authored instrument unless the new translation turns up on the newest trustworthiness off extrinsic evidence.” (Id. from the p. 865; find in addition to Medical Procedures Management, Inc. v. National Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, given that activities shown nothing related with no contradictory extrinsic facts (look for Pacific Fuel & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 Good.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh demo legal safely refused to fill out the new translation of created guarantee towards jury. (Discover Medical Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional in the p. 892, fn.4.) At exactly the same time, but not, we because looking at courtroom think about the research and translate the fresh new guaranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d from the p. 866; Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d within p. 891.)