Accused Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment adopting the trial courtroom directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff Household Government Deals & Mortgage Connection (House Federal) off Ramos’s liability to your a personal bank loan warranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing administrator having Household Government, negotiated the fresh new contract which have Brooks and you will prepared about three files-the mortgage modification contract, this new promissory notice while the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos is actually chairman of Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca business. R/J Co. is actually the entire mate off a restricted partnership, this new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), shaped to-do the newest Peacock Ridge construction investment. Ranging from Sep 1983 and you will March 1985, plaintiff House Government loaned almost $7.cuatro mil on Peacock union. All the four operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed big sums inside accrued attention and had almost every other loans concerning the project. Home Federal acknowledged a beneficial “workout arrangement” where they forgave just about $one hundred,one hundred thousand of your appeal and you can wanted to loan Peacock an additional $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock assured to do good promissory mention having $150,100000 covered of the your own guaranty closed of the Ramos.

Brand new work out agreement was negotiated on the behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. employee. Application. three-dimensional 1612] personal guaranty-which he brought to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all about three closed records so you’re able to Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. step 1

Brand new promissory notice provided a signature range to own “Ronald J. Ramos, President” from R/J Co. due to the fact standard mate out-of Peacock. Ramos closed new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guaranty provided next medical language:

By November 1986, financial difficulties toward project triggered Peacock to standard towards Family Federal fund

“From inside the idea of the loan in the Relationship to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), certainly and you will unconditionally make sure and you will hope to expend so you can Relationship, or whoever Organization purchases us to shell out, any and all indebtedness out of Debtor to Relationship confirmed by the, or even in in whatever way connected with the borrowed funds (plus although not limited to extra improves or money) or perhaps the mention, and also to create most loan in Aristocrat Ranchettes CO of the covenants and you may arrangements off Debtor within the brand new note otherwise any shelter arrangement ranging from Borrower and Association.” Brand new signature range in the bottom of the document taken to this new signature out of “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos signed it he previously closed the new promissory notice: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted into the the brand new note and you can Home Government delivered fit so you can impose new warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor you to definitely his trademark given that “Pres.” shown an intention so you’re able to bind simply R/J Co. and never himself privately for the guarantee. At the romantic of all the evidence, brand new demonstration courtroom granted House Federal’s action to possess a led decision, finishing it absolutely was bound by the fresh new court’s choice in Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. three dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We start with a keyword towards procedural present of your own circumstances. This new demo courtroom led a decision up against Ramos, concluding there can be no disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational proof and trusting by itself bound by an early Legal of Attract decision. (Select generally Auto Collateral Transformation, Inc. v. Premium Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Despite its lack of a regulating appellate decision, although not, this new legal is correct inside choosing one zero jury matter is shown. As the Finest Legal informed me from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “Brand new translation of a written tool, whilst it pertains to what might properly be entitled questions out of truth [citation], is largely a judicial mode to-be worked out with regards to the essentially accepted canons regarding interpretation therefore the reason for new instrument could be provided feeling. . Therefore it is solely an official means to understand a composed appliance unless the latest translation transforms on the newest credibility out of extrinsic evidence.” (Id. on p. 865; get a hold of and additionally Medical Functions Administration, Inc. v. National Fitness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, once the functions presented nothing relevant and no conflicting extrinsic proof (discover Pacific Gasoline & E. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty A good.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the newest trial judge securely would not complete this new translation of one’s authored guaranty toward jury. (Discover Scientific Surgery Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d within p. 892, fn.4.) As well, however, i given that looking at legal consider the proof and you will understand the latest warranty de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d on p. 866; Scientific Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional from the p. 891.)