Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom after the trial judge directed a decision in favor of plaintiff Household Federal Deals & Loan Connection (Domestic Federal) out of Ramos’s responsibility towards the a personal bank loan warranty. I affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a major mortgage officer having Home Government, discussed the new agreement which have Brooks and you will wishing around three records-the borrowed funds modification agreement, new promissory note while the [229 Cal

Defendant Ramos try president of the Ramos/Jensen Providers (R/J Co.), a california enterprise. R/J Co. try the general lover away from a finite connection, the newest Peacock Ridge Providers (Peacock), shaped to complete the new Peacock Ridge structure investment. Anywhere between September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned nearly $seven.4 billion to the Peacock relationship. Each one of the four os.

At that point, Peacock due nice figures inside the accumulated desire and had most other obligations concerning the the project. Household Government recognized an excellent “work out arrangement” in which it forgave all but $100,100000 of desire and you can wanted to financing Peacock an extra $50,one hundred thousand. In exchange, Peacock guaranteed to execute an effective promissory mention getting $150,one hundred thousand covered because of the your own guaranty finalized by the Ramos.

The newest work out contract is negotiated on behalf of Peacock of the Arthur Brooks, an enthusiastic R/J Co. worker. App. three-dimensional 1612] individual guarantee-he brought to Brooks for the purpose of acquiring Ramos’s trademark. Brooks returned most of the three finalized data so you can Lynn into December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The new promissory mention offered a signature range to possess “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out-of Roentgen/J Co. since the general companion of Peacock. Ramos signed the new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The personal guaranty included the next surgical words:

Of the November 1986, financial difficulties into the project brought about Peacock to help you default on the Home Federal money

“For the attention of your own financing on Organization to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), definitely and unconditionally verify and promise to blow so you’re able to Connection, otherwise whoever Connection sales me to shell out, all indebtedness from Debtor in order to Organization evidenced by the, or perhaps in in whatever way about the borrowed funds (along with not restricted to extra enhances otherwise financing) or even the notice, in order to perform the covenants and you can preparations of Borrower within brand new note or any defense contract anywhere between Borrower and you may Connection.” The brand new trademark line at the end of one’s document sent to new signature off “Ronald J. Ramos.” As an alternative, Ramos signed it as he had finalized this new promissory mention: “R.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted with the brand new note and Family Government delivered fit so you can demand the new warranty, Ramos defended on the floor one his signature as “Pres.” conveyed an intention so you can join only Roentgen/J Co. and never themselves physically into guaranty. On personal of the many research, brand new trial court granted Household Federal’s actions having a brought decision, concluding it actually was limited by brand new court’s choice from inside the Sebastian All over the world, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. three-dimensional 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I start with a word concerning the procedural present of your situation. The new demonstration court directed a decision facing Ramos, concluding there is no conflict in [229 Cal. App. three dimensional 1613] the appropriate foundational research and you can believing by itself bound by an early on Courtroom from Notice decision. (See basically Vehicle Guarantee Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside the absence of a managing appellate choice, but not, the latest court is actually correct from inside the choosing one to no jury matter was demonstrated. Since the Ultimate Court told me from inside the Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The brand new interpretation off an authored instrument, whilst it comes to what would properly become named questions of reality [citation], is largely an official setting to-be worked out according to the basically approved canons regarding interpretation so the reason for this new instrument is offered effect. . Making it exclusively an official function so you’re able to translate a composed tool except if the newest interpretation transforms upon the latest credibility away from extrinsic research.” (Id. in the p. 865; come across plus Scientific Procedures Government, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Right here, as the activities presented little relevant with no conflicting extrinsic research (come across Pacific Fuel & Elizabeth. Co. v. Grams.W. Thomas Drayage an such like. Co. (1968) 69 Cal loan places Acres Green. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An excellent.L.Roentgen.three dimensional 1373]), brand new demo courtroom safely would not submit the fresh translation of the authored guaranty with the jury. (Look for Scientific Surgery Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d in the p. 892, fn.4.) Likewise, not, i because examining judge consider the research and you may interpret the brand new guarantee de novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d during the p. 866; Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at the p. 891.)