Offender Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view adopting the demo court directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Domestic Government Deals & Loan Organization (Home Government) of Ramos’s responsibility towards a personal loan warranty. We affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary mortgage administrator having Household Federal, negotiated the latest agreement that have Brooks and you can wishing around three data-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, new promissory mention therefore the [229 Cal
Accused Ramos is actually chairman of your Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. is the overall spouse of a limited commitment, the brand new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), designed accomplish the fresh new Peacock Ridge structure opportunity. Between Sep 1983 and March 1985, plaintiff Household Government loaned almost $seven.cuatro billion towards the Peacock union. Each of the five os.
When this occurs, Peacock due reasonable sums when you look at the accrued payday loans Akron desire together with almost every other loans concerning the project. Home Federal approved a great “work-out arrangement” where it forgave just about $100,one hundred thousand of your desire and you will provided to financing Peacock an additional $fifty,000. In return, Peacock guaranteed to execute a great promissory note having $150,100000 secure from the a personal warranty finalized of the Ramos.
The brand new exercise agreement is discussed with respect to Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. employee. Software. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-that he delivered to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back all the three finalized data files so you can Lynn towards December 18, 1986.fn. step one
Brand new promissory notice offered a trademark line to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from Roentgen/J Co. because the general companion from Peacock. Ramos closed the newest document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The private warranty integrated another medical code:
From the November 1986, financial hardships towards investment caused Peacock so you’re able to default into the House Government finance
“From inside the thought of your own loan on the Organization in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you may for any reason be sure and you will hope to pay in order to Organization, otherwise whoever Relationship requests me to shell out, any and all indebtedness off Borrower to Organization confirmed by, or perhaps in in whatever way related to the borrowed funds (along with however limited to a lot more advances or fund) and/or mention, and to create all the covenants and arrangements away from Debtor present in the new mention or one coverage contract anywhere between Debtor and you can Organization.” Brand new signature line at the bottom of your own file taken to the new trademark of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it he’d finalized the latest promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”
When Peacock defaulted into the the newest mention and House Federal produced fit to help you enforce the guaranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one his signature while the “Pres.” indicated an intention in order to join only Roentgen/J Co. and never himself yourself for the warranty. At intimate of all of the evidence, the latest demo judge offered Household Federal’s motion having a directed verdict, finishing it absolutely was limited by brand new court’s choice inside the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
We start with a keyword towards proceeding present of one’s instance. The trial court led a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there can be no disagreement when you look at the [229 Cal. Software. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you can thinking in itself bound by an earlier Judge of Attract choice. (Get a hold of fundamentally Vehicle Collateral Transformation, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a regulating appellate choice, but not, this new court try correct for the deciding you to no jury question are displayed. Once the Best Legal said in Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “This new translation out-of a written software, whilst it relates to what might properly feel entitled inquiries away from fact [citation], is largely an official setting becoming exercised depending on the essentially recognized canons away from translation and so the purposes of the fresh software is offered impression. . Making it exclusively an official mode to interpret a created software until this new interpretation converts abreast of the dependability away from extrinsic facts.” (Id. within p. 865; look for along with Scientific Businesses Administration, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the parties shown little relevant without contradictory extrinsic facts (come across Pacific Energy & Elizabeth. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An excellent.L.R.3d 1373]), brand new demonstration courtroom securely would not submit new translation of your own composed guaranty on the jury. (Select Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three-dimensional at p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Simultaneously, yet not, we because evaluating courtroom consider the proof and you will translate the newest guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Scientific Operations Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d in the p. 891.)