Offender Ronald J. Ramos is attractive a judgment following the trial judge brought a verdict in support of plaintiff Family Government Deals & Mortgage Relationship (Domestic Federal) of Ramos’s responsibility into a personal loan guaranty. We affirm.

Thomas Lynn, a primary financing officer to have Home Government, negotiated the fresh new agreement which have Brooks and you will waiting around three data files-the mortgage modification agreement, the newest promissory notice and also the [229 Cal

Accused Ramos are president of one’s Ramos/Jensen Business (R/J Co.), a california business. R/J Co. are the entire mate away from a small relationship, the new Peacock Ridge Team (Peacock), molded to complete the Peacock Ridge structure project. Between September 1983 and you can February 1985, plaintiff House Federal loaned nearly $seven.cuatro mil towards Peacock partnership. Each one of the four operating-system.

At that time, Peacock owed large figures within the Frederick loans accrued desire and had other debt regarding the your panels. Home Federal approved good „work out agreement“ in which they forgave just about $100,one hundred thousand of the notice and offered to mortgage Peacock an additional $fifty,100000. Inturn, Peacock guaranteed to perform an excellent promissory note having $150,one hundred thousand covered from the your own guaranty closed because of the Ramos.

New exercise contract is negotiated on behalf of Peacock because of the Arthur Brooks, a keen Roentgen/J Co. staff member. Software. three-dimensional 1612] personal guaranty-which he brought to Brooks with regards to obtaining Ramos’s signature. Brooks returned all of the about three closed files in order to Lynn with the December 18, 1986.fn. 1

The brand new promissory notice provided a signature line to have „Ronald J. Ramos, President“ out-of Roentgen/J Co. since general partner out of Peacock. Ramos closed the new document „Roentgen.J. Ramos, Pres.“ The private guarantee provided the second medical language:

By November 1986, financial difficulties to the endeavor triggered Peacock so you can standard to the House Federal loans

„Within the idea of your own mortgage on the Connection in order to Borrower, I, Ronald J. Ramos (Guarantor), surely and you can for any reason verify and promise to pay to Connection, otherwise the person who Relationship sales us to shell out, any and all indebtedness regarding Debtor to help you Relationship evidenced from the, or in in any manner associated with the borrowed funds (and additionally not limited to extra advances or financing) and/or mention, also to do all the covenants and you will plans off Borrower contained in the brand new notice or people security agreement between Borrower and you can Association.“ The latest trademark range towards the bottom of the document provided for the newest signature out of „Ronald J. Ramos.“ Instead, Ramos finalized it he’d finalized the newest promissory note: „R.J. Ramos, Pres.“

Whenever Peacock defaulted for the the new note and you can Household Federal introduced suit to help you demand the guaranty, Ramos defended on the floor one their trademark due to the fact „Pres.“ conveyed a purpose to help you bind only R/J Co. and not themselves in person on the guarantee. At close of all the research, the fresh new trial court offered Family Federal’s actions getting a directed verdict, finishing it was limited by the latest court’s decision when you look at the Sebastian International, Inc. v. Peck (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 803 [240 Cal. Rptr. 911].

I focus on a term regarding the procedural pose of your own circumstances. The brand new demo legal brought a verdict up against Ramos, finishing there clearly was no conflict for the [229 Cal. Application. 3d 1613] the appropriate foundational research and thinking itself limited by a young Judge of Interest choice. (See fundamentally Auto Guarantee Transformation, Inc. v. Advanced Courtroom (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 [20 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) [2a] Even yet in its lack of a managing appellate choice, not, the judge is best from inside the determining you to no jury matter try presented. While the Supreme Legal explained during the Parsons v. Bristol Invention Co. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 861 [forty two Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], „The fresh interpretation out-of a written instrument, while it pertains to what would properly become named issues from truth [citation], is largely a judicial means is exercised according to generally accepted canons away from interpretation so that the reason for the fresh new tool tends to be offered effect. . So it is only a judicial mode so you can understand an authored device unless of course the new interpretation converts through to the latest credibility from extrinsic facts.“ (Id. at the p. 865; pick and additionally Medical Businesses Management, Inc. v. Federal Health Labs, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal. App. three-dimensional 886, 891-892 [222 Cal. Rptr. 455].) [2b] Here, as activities displayed nothing relevant without conflicting extrinsic research (discover Pacific Fuel & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 33, 37 [69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, forty An effective.L.R.three dimensional 1373]), this new demo court securely would not submit the fresh new interpretation of written guaranty towards the jury. (Get a hold of Medical Procedures Administration, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d in the p. 892, fn.4.) Likewise, not, we given that examining courtroom check out the proof and you may translate the fresh guaranty de- novo. (Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d in the p. 866; Scientific Operations Management, supra, 176 Cal.Application.three-dimensional on p. 891.)