Defendant Ronald J. Ramos appeals a wisdom following the demo judge brought a decision in support of plaintiff Household Federal Offers & Loan Organization (Household Federal) out-of Ramos’s responsibility to your a consumer loan guaranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary loan administrator having Household Federal, discussed the fresh new contract that have Brooks and you can wishing around three records-the mortgage amendment agreement, the promissory notice together with [229 Cal

Accused Ramos is chairman of Ramos/Jensen Team (R/J Co.), a california organization. R/J Co. are the entire spouse from a small union, the Peacock Ridge Company (Peacock), formed to do the latest Peacock Ridge framework investment. Ranging from September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff Family Government loaned almost $seven.cuatro mil to the Peacock partnership. Each one of the four os.

When this occurs, Peacock owed ample amounts into the accrued interest along with other obligations concerning your panels. House Government accepted a good “work-out arrangement” where it forgave just about $a hundred,100 of the notice and you will provided to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,000. In exchange, Peacock assured to do a good promissory note having $150,100 secured of the your own warranty finalized because of the Ramos.

The fresh new work out agreement try discussed on the part of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, a keen R/J Co. staff member. Application. three dimensional 1612] private guaranty-that he brought to Brooks for the true purpose of acquiring Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all of the about three finalized files in order to Lynn to the December 18, 1986.fn. step one

The fresh promissory mention offered a trademark range to have “Ronald J. Ramos, President” out of R/J Co. as general lover off Peacock. Ramos finalized brand new document “R.J. Ramos, Pres.” The non-public warranty included the following medical language:

From the November 1986, financial hardships to your project triggered Peacock to default to your Household Government loans

“During the believe of one’s financing regarding Connection so you’re able to Debtor, We, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and unconditionally good site guarantee and you may hope to pay so you’re able to Relationship, or anyone who Connection purchases me to pay, all indebtedness out-of Debtor to help you Relationship confirmed from the, or in any way connected with the borrowed funds (as well as although not limited by a lot more enhances or money) or the notice, also to would the covenants and you will plans regarding Borrower contained in brand new note or one safeguards agreement anywhere between Debtor and Organization.” Brand new trademark line in the bottom of your own file sent to the brand new signature from “Ronald J. Ramos.” Alternatively, Ramos closed it he had signed this new promissory mention: “Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.”

Whenever Peacock defaulted to your the newest note and you may Domestic Federal brought match to enforce the newest guarantee, Ramos defended on to the ground one to their trademark while the “Pres.” indicated an intention so you can bind merely R/J Co. rather than himself personally into the guarantee. At the romantic of the many proof, the fresh new demo judge offered Domestic Federal’s activity for a brought decision, finishing it actually was limited by new court’s choice for the Sebastian Around the globe, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. Software. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

We begin with a keyword regarding the procedural pose of instance. The fresh new trial legal brought a verdict facing Ramos, concluding there clearly was no disagreement when you look at the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational evidence and you will thinking alone bound by a young Legal of Focus decision. (See fundamentally Vehicles Guarantee Transformation, Inc. v. Advanced Legal (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Inside its lack of a managing appellate choice, although not, the fresh new court is actually correct inside the choosing one to zero jury question try displayed. Once the Finest Courtroom told me in Parsons v. Bristol Advancement Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [49 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], “The fresh new interpretation away from a created instrument, while it relates to what might properly end up being named concerns from truth [citation], is largely an official mode become exercised depending on the fundamentally accepted canons out of interpretation therefore the reason for the fresh appliance are considering perception. . So it’s exclusively an official mode so you’re able to understand an authored appliance unless of course new translation transforms abreast of the dependability from extrinsic research.” (Id. within p. 865; find in addition to Medical Surgery Management, Inc. v. Federal Wellness Laboratories, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. Software. three dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as functions showed absolutely nothing associated no conflicting extrinsic facts (find Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etcetera. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 An excellent.L.Roentgen.three-dimensional 1373]), the trial legal securely refused to fill out new interpretation of one’s written guarantee with the jury. (Get a hold of Medical Operations Government, supra, 176 Cal.Application.3d at the p. 892, fn.4.) Likewise, not, i as the evaluating legal look at the research and you will understand the brand new warranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 866; Scientific Businesses Administration, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three dimensional at p. 891.)