decision for the other guarantee in question to become meaningless or absurdity considering the loan documents together which are all in this case as a whole claims to be only of gently reasonable conclusion which is that the  entire transaction they supposed to me and specifically at that point when you look at the fact that there's a deed of trust which secures the law by placing a mortgage on the real estate in addition effect of a promissory note which responsible for having the documents construed against them the drafters of the other side your honor we rely on dean messing the contract interpretation which is that the document should you construed it against the right to dress it with respect she agreed to a new batch her all city was paying for the document preparation feed and she also signed the closing documents showing him very fast as a managing member of the yellow sea nets noted in the record on pages sixty sixty four as well as seventy three seven hundred eighty six so what this shows is that she had knowledge bad mr santos to document prepare ahead put these documents together and it was under the direction you can see a closing statement that my client loan six hundred thousand dollars and the borrower side of the transaction the fifteen hundred dollar dokken a preparation feat was done to from their loan proceeds so they paid for it wh i don't think that's correct your honor and i think more how we should view it is that she was aware she was hiring her business partners company to prepare those documents it was not company and agent hired by my client basis that's how california law requires these documents be construed so one of the questions it's either in the ramos or pet case is what would a reasonable lender in that situation have understood  guarantors is doing what they have expected that freberg run is not so see in this case was also guaranteeing a lot it was already obligated on which is not a disputed fact either so the point i think we need to take away is that  the only way to look at the objective intent of the pardons which can be supplemented by those emails is bad a lender was expecting personal guarantees from the bar even if the borrowers were proceedings just sure at the trial level the honorable judge shores he found that based on the record before the court that it was clear mr from him thought he was getting a personal guarantee it's just a question of i don't know if it's necessarily directly but for the most part of this guaranteed california law with a life journey into the record that the defendant knew that your client required a live show and day to know common law within the state of california were judges yourself we're stretching down those guarantees because they're nothing but the term sham guarantees that guarantees are normally by their person normally in most in this door or this window for them is if the court were finding an absurdity but we haven't provided the court with numerous reasons why it is not of certainty under the law and i also will point out that there are stronger provisions in the guaranteed then there are in the corresponding promissory note there's additional waivers of the guarantee there's additional time extensions by which the the the lender is given additional concessions if you will so that the guarantee wrong but you said of course that your client never personally guarantee but during her deposition i think i recall her same each never read the documentation in she just question was if not get to you and him to you when we start getting into this santos after davis of all those things do you lose no i don't think so and i don't think we can get into that simple stuff because with all due respect i don't think he is a party requires that the court construe the law documents as a whole so when looking at the fact that my client won six hundred thousand dollars the basis for that  see it secured by a deed of trust that's signed by all the members as numbers explicitly and then in addition to that security for the real estate my client also required a personal guarantee from all the members there would still be no reason to under california law as here makes sense a guarantee is a different type of agreement would have a different language and they're not identical to the whole intent of the guarantee is different from that of the pro