Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following trial courtroom brought a verdict in favor of plaintiff House Government Discounts & Loan Association (Home Government) from Ramos’s accountability on the an unsecured loan warranty. I affirm.
Thomas Lynn, a primary loan manager to have House Federal, discussed new contract having Brooks and wishing about three documents-the loan amendment agreement, the promissory note additionally the [229 Cal
Offender Ramos is actually chairman of one’s Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. was the general spouse from a finite commitment, brand new Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), formed to-do this new Peacock Ridge framework investment. Between Sep 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff Family Federal loaned nearly $seven.4 mil on loans Parker CO the Peacock connection. Each one of the five os.
At that point, Peacock owed nice sums for the accrued notice and had other financial obligation about the your panels. Household Federal approved an excellent «exercise agreement» where it forgave all but $100,100000 of attention and you can accessible to loan Peacock an additional $fifty,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock guaranteed to perform a beneficial promissory note to own $150,one hundred thousand protected of the an individual guarantee signed because of the Ramos.
The new workout contract are negotiated on the part of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. worker. Application. 3d 1612] individual guarantee-that he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned most of the three signed records to help you Lynn to your December 18, 1986.fn. 1
The brand new promissory note given a trademark range to possess «Ronald J. Ramos, President» off Roentgen/J Co. because general spouse away from Peacock. Ramos signed the newest document «Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.» The personal guaranty incorporated next surgical code:
From the November 1986, financial difficulties towards the venture triggered Peacock to help you default into the Household Federal funds
«From inside the planning of loan throughout the Connection so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), seriously and you may for any reason be sure and you will hope to blow to Association, otherwise the person who Connection requests me to shell out, any indebtedness of Debtor so you’re able to Association confirmed by the, or even in any way connected with the loan (plus but not restricted to a lot more improves otherwise loans) and/or note, in order to would all covenants and you may plans off Debtor contained in the brand new note or one defense agreement anywhere between Borrower and Association.» New trademark range in the bottom of one’s document delivered to this new trademark regarding «Ronald J. Ramos.» Rather, Ramos finalized it as he previously signed the newest promissory mention: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»
Whenever Peacock defaulted for the the fresh new notice and House Government put match so you’re able to impose brand new warranty, Ramos defended on the floor you to his signature given that «Pres.» expressed a purpose in order to join merely Roentgen/J Co. rather than himself really to your guaranty. From the intimate of all the proof, the newest demonstration legal supplied Family Federal’s actions getting a directed verdict, concluding it had been limited by the court’s choice for the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].
I start with a phrase regarding the procedural posture of your own situation. New demo courtroom led a verdict against Ramos, concluding there can be zero argument inside the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you will believing alone limited by an early Legal off Interest choice. (Get a hold of essentially Vehicles Collateral Sales, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even in the absence of a managing appellate decision, however, this new courtroom is proper for the deciding one zero jury concern is actually presented. Since the Finest Court explained for the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «New translation from a composed device, although it pertains to what might securely be called concerns regarding fact [citation], is essentially a judicial form to get exercised with respect to the essentially approved canons out-of translation so that the purposes of brand new software may be considering effect. . Making it solely a judicial form so you’re able to translate an authored appliance except if new interpretation transforms on this new trustworthiness of extrinsic proof.» (Id. from the p. 865; come across along with Scientific Operations Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, since people demonstrated little associated no conflicting extrinsic facts (pick Pacific Fuel & Age. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the fresh new demonstration court securely refused to fill out brand new interpretation of your composed guarantee for the jury. (Look for Medical Functions Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.three dimensional during the p. 892, fn.4.) In addition, not, i as the looking at legal think about the proof and you may translate the fresh warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at the p. 891.)