Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: signing a legal with an assumed name

Normally you can use any name you want as long as it is not being used to defraud someone. And if someone is suing you, you would be estopped [prevented from raising it as an argument] from arguing you are not bound by the contract because you used a false name. If that were a legitimate excuse, every Robert who signs his name Bob could avoid ever having to pay on a credit card or other contract. What made you think that you could avoid a legal obligation for that reason?

Re: signing a legal with an assumed name

Probably. Both Commercial Code section 3401(b)(2) and former Civil Code section 3099, which it replaced, authorize the use of an assumed or trade name on documents and instruments used in trade, and there is old case law applying these principles to the enforcement of promissory notes and deeds of trust.

On the other hand, Penal Code section 470 makes it a criminal forgery to sign a false name to an instrument (there is a list of instruments covered in subsection (d) of PC 470, and it includes promissory notes) with intent to defraud. However, if you signed with no intent to defraud, you did not commit a forgery.

I would say that under the circumstances the note and deed of trust are valid and can be enforced against you as a borrower or co-borrower if that's what you were, despite the use of an assumed name; but that since you did not intend to defraud the lender, you did nothing for which you can be punished criminally.