Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a wisdom adopting the demo legal directed a decision in favor of plaintiff House Federal Coupons & Mortgage Connection (House Federal) from Ramos’s accountability on a personal loan guaranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing administrator to have Household Federal, negotiated the latest agreement having Brooks and you may wishing about three data files-the mortgage amendment arrangement, brand new promissory mention in addition to [229 Cal

Accused Ramos is actually president of Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a ca company. R/J Co. was the entire mate off a restricted partnership, the latest Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), shaped doing the Peacock Ridge build opportunity. Anywhere between September 1983 and you may February 1985, plaintiff Family Government loaned almost $eight.cuatro mil on Peacock commitment. Each of the five os.

At that point, Peacock due nice figures inside the accumulated desire and had other personal debt regarding have a peek at this web site the the project. Home Federal approved good «exercise agreement» where they forgave just about $100,000 of your own desire and you will agreed to mortgage Peacock an additional $50,000. Reciprocally, Peacock guaranteed to perform a good promissory note for $150,one hundred thousand secured by the your own guarantee closed by the Ramos.

The newest work-out contract try discussed with respect to Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, an Roentgen/J Co. staff. Software. 3d 1612] personal guaranty-he taken to Brooks with regards to obtaining Ramos’s trademark. Brooks came back most of the three finalized data to Lynn to your December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The fresh new promissory notice given a signature line for «Ronald J. Ramos, President» off R/J Co. since general lover off Peacock. Ramos signed the fresh new document «R.J. Ramos, Pres.» The non-public guarantee provided the next operative vocabulary:

Of the November 1986, financial hardships on opportunity brought about Peacock to standard to the Home Federal financing

«From inside the believe of the financing regarding Connection so you can Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and you will for any reason ensure and you will promise to spend so you can Relationship, or anyone who Association commands us to spend, every indebtedness out-of Debtor to help you Organization confirmed from the, or even in in whatever way associated with the borrowed funds (together with although not limited by a lot more advances otherwise funds) or even the notice, and also to perform most of the covenants and you can preparations from Borrower present in the latest notice or people protection contract between Debtor and you can Connection.» The new signature range in the bottom of document sent to this new trademark of «Ronald J. Ramos.» Alternatively, Ramos signed it as he’d closed the fresh new promissory note: «R.J. Ramos, Pres.»

When Peacock defaulted to your new note and you will Family Federal put fit to enforce the fresh warranty, Ramos defended on to the ground one their trademark just like the «Pres.» shown a purpose to join just R/J Co. and never themselves physically on the guarantee. At the close of all facts, the fresh new demonstration legal granted Domestic Federal’s actions for a brought verdict, concluding it actually was bound by the fresh new court’s decision in Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We focus on a term concerning proceeding pose of your own situation. The latest demonstration legal led a decision against Ramos, finishing discover zero conflict from inside the [229 Cal. Software. three-dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational facts and you can thinking alone bound by an early on Court of Attention choice. (Come across fundamentally Automobile Equity Conversion, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a controlling appellate decision, however, the fresh new legal is actually best inside the choosing one to no jury matter try showed. Just like the Finest Courtroom explained in the Parsons v. Bristol Creativity Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty-two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], «New translation from a created appliance, whilst it involves what might properly feel entitled concerns off reality [citation], is basically an official form become worked out with regards to the essentially accepted canons out-of translation therefore, the reason for the fresh means can be offered effect. . Making it only a judicial setting to translate a written means until the latest translation transforms through to this new dependability regarding extrinsic proof.» (Id. from the p. 865; select including Medical Businesses Management, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, while the events presented little associated without contradictory extrinsic proof (find Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A beneficial.L.R.three-dimensional 1373]), the newest demonstration courtroom safely would not complete the brand new interpretation of your own authored warranty to the jury. (Select Scientific Surgery Management, supra, 176 Cal.Software.3d at the p. 892, fn.4.) In addition, although not, we once the evaluating court think about the proof and you can interpret this new guarantee de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Medical Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.three dimensional at the p. 891.)