Defendant Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a view adopting the demonstration courtroom directed a verdict and only plaintiff Domestic Government Discounts & Mortgage Association (House Federal) out-of Ramos’s accountability on the a personal bank loan guaranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing manager having Household Government, negotiated the fresh arrangement which have Brooks and you will prepared three documents-the borrowed funds modification arrangement, the brand new promissory notice additionally the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos are chairman of your own Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california organization. R/J Co. try all round spouse out-of a small relationship, the new Peacock Ridge Organization (Peacock), designed doing the Peacock Ridge construction venture. Ranging from September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Household Federal loaned nearly $seven.cuatro million toward Peacock relationship. All the five operating system.

When this occurs, Peacock owed good-sized sums when you look at the accrued notice together with most other financial obligation concerning your panels. House Government acknowledged an excellent “workout contract” in which it forgave all but $one hundred,100 of the attract and agreed to financing Peacock a supplementary $50,100000. Reciprocally, Peacock assured to execute a beneficial promissory mention having $150,100 secure by your own guaranty closed by Ramos.

The brand new workout arrangement try discussed on the behalf of Peacock by the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. employee. App. 3d 1612] individual warranty-which he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of getting Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned most of the around three finalized records so you’re able to Lynn towards the December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The newest promissory notice considering a trademark line having “Ronald J. Ramos, President” off R/J Co. as the general lover from Peacock. Ramos finalized the fresh new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public guarantee incorporated the following medical words:

By the November 1986, financial hardships toward venture caused Peacock so you can standard towards the Home Federal funds

“Inside believe of your own mortgage about Association in order to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), absolutely and for any reason guarantee and promise to spend to Relationship, or anyone who Relationship instructions us to spend, any and all indebtedness away from Borrower in order to Connection confirmed by the, or even in in whatever way linked to the borrowed funds (plus not limited by even more enhances otherwise fund) or the note, also to manage all the covenants and you can agreements out-of Borrower present in the brand new mention otherwise any shelter arrangement between Debtor and Association.” The newest trademark range towards the bottom of your own file delivered to the fresh new signature regarding “Ronald J. Ramos.” Instead, Ramos finalized it as he’d finalized the latest promissory mention: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”

When Peacock defaulted towards the new mention and you may Household Government produced match so you can impose the latest warranty, Ramos defended on the floor one their signature since the “Pres.” indicated a purpose so you’re able to join only Roentgen/J Co. rather than themselves truly into the guaranty. During the romantic of the many proof, brand new demo legal provided Home Federal’s action to own a brought verdict, finishing it was bound by new court’s decision when you look at the Sebastian Worldwide, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Application. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I start with a term concerning proceeding pose of your case. The new demo court directed a verdict up against Ramos, concluding there is no disagreement from inside the [229 Cal. App. 3d 1613] the relevant foundational facts and you can assuming in itself limited by an earlier Legal out of Notice decision. (Come across basically Vehicle Guarantee Sales, Inc. v. Premium Judge (1962) 57 Cal loans in Garden City. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a managing appellate decision, yet not, the brand new judge try right when you look at the determining you to no jury question is actually showed. Since the Best Courtroom informed me inside the Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The new translation from an authored instrument, while it relates to what might safely be titled questions out-of facts [citation], is essentially a judicial means as resolved with regards to the fundamentally recognized canons out of interpretation so the purposes of the new instrument could be provided feeling. . Therefore it is entirely a judicial setting so you can interpret a created instrument unless the fresh new translation transforms upon the trustworthiness away from extrinsic evidence.” (Id. from the p. 865; discover plus Medical Functions Government, Inc. v. National Fitness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Application. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as the people exhibited little relevant without contradictory extrinsic facts (see Pacific Gasoline & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A good.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the new demo legal securely would not submit the new interpretation of the authored guarantee toward jury. (Look for Scientific Procedures Government, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 892, fn.4.) On the other hand, although not, i due to the fact evaluating judge look at the evidence and you can understand the newest guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d within p. 866; Medical Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional from the p. 891.)