Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a view after the trial courtroom led a decision in favor of plaintiff Family Federal Deals & Mortgage Association (Family Federal) out of Ramos’s responsibility toward a personal loan warranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan officer to possess Domestic Federal, negotiated the arrangement which have Brooks and you will waiting about three data-the loan amendment agreement, this new promissory notice therefore the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos is actually chairman of the Ramos/Jensen Company (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. is the entire spouse of a small commitment, the newest Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), molded to accomplish the latest Peacock Ridge framework opportunity. Ranging from September 1983 and you may March 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned almost $seven.4 mil on the Peacock relationship. Each one of the four operating-system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed large sums inside the accumulated interest together with most other obligations concerning the project. Household Federal approved an effective « workout agreement » in which they forgave just about $100,100000 of your own appeal and agreed to loan Peacock an additional $fifty,100. In exchange, Peacock promised to perform a great promissory mention getting $150,one hundred thousand safeguarded of the your own warranty closed of the Ramos.

The exercise contract was negotiated with respect to Peacock from the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. personnel. App. three dimensional 1612] individual guaranty-which he delivered to Brooks for the intended purpose of obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned all about three finalized data files so you’re able to Lynn on December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The fresh new promissory mention considering a trademark range for « Ronald J. Ramos, President » from Roentgen/J Co. since the standard spouse regarding Peacock. Ramos signed the fresh new file « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. » The private warranty integrated another surgical vocabulary:

Of the November 1986, financial difficulties toward venture caused Peacock to standard towards Domestic Government financing

« Inside idea of your loan regarding Association so you can Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), undoubtedly and you will for any reason make sure and you may pledge to spend to Organization, otherwise whoever Organization instructions us to shell out, all indebtedness away from Debtor so you can Relationship evidenced of the, or in in whatever way regarding the mortgage (along with although not limited by most improves otherwise finance) or the note, also to would most of the covenants and you will plans from Borrower present in the fresh new mention or people security agreement between Borrower and you will Association. » The fresh new trademark range at the end of document taken to the latest trademark off « Ronald J. Ramos. » Alternatively, Ramos closed it as he’d closed the promissory notice: « Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres. »

Whenever Peacock defaulted into the new mention and House Government produced match so you can impose brand new warranty, Ramos defended on to the floor one their trademark while the « Pres. » conveyed an intent so you’re able to join merely Roentgen/J Co. and not themselves directly to the guarantee. At intimate of all of the research, this new demonstration court provided House Federal’s action having a directed verdict, concluding it absolutely was bound by the court’s decision from inside the Sebastian Internationally, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I begin with a phrase regarding proceeding posture of your instance. The brand new demo judge led a decision up against Ramos, finishing there is zero dispute for the [229 Cal. App. three-dimensional 1613] the relevant foundational research and you can assuming alone limited by an early Courtroom away from Attract decision. (Get a hold of basically Automobile Collateral Conversion process, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] In its lack of a controlling appellate choice, however, the fresh court are proper into the choosing one zero jury question try presented. While the Supreme Court told me in the Parsons v. Bristol Innovation Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], « The new interpretation from a created software, whilst it concerns what can properly feel called concerns out of reality [citation], is basically a judicial means is worked out with respect to the fundamentally approved canons regarding translation so the purposes of the newest device is provided impact. . Making it solely a judicial mode so you can translate a written software until the new translation turns through to the fresh new credibility away from extrinsic research. » (Id. on p. 865; see along with Medical Businesses Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, because parties displayed nothing related no conflicting extrinsic facts (pick Pacific Gas & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 check out the post right here [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A great.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), the new trial courtroom securely refused to fill in the new translation of your authored guarantee for the jury. (Get a hold of Scientific Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d on p. 892, fn.cuatro.) Concurrently, yet not, we due to the fact looking at courtroom look at the research and you may translate new guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Medical Functions Government, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional during the p. 891.)