Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: name use on title

There are probably (at least) two legal issues here that need to be addressed more or less separately.

The first is how one deals with property which one owns, by right, but where ownership may be difficult to assert due to having taken title in an assumed name, or at least in a name not legally one's own. This problem is a little different from that which arises when there is a "legitimate" name change due to marriage, legal action, etc. Please note that corporations frequently own land, often change their names, but do not thereby incur major title problems!

The second legal issue is whether and how your spouse can carry out a "raid" on your property and get away with it, to your detriment.

The answer to the first issue is that one may lawfully receive and hold title to real property under an assumed or fictitious name, so long as there was no intent to deceive or defraud anyone. See Overton v. Harband (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 455 and Estate of Baker (2002) 2002 WL 1943475.

The owner under a fictitious name would need to resell (or reconvey as a gift, etc.) under the same fictitious name, or the title granted would be unmarketable as out of the record chain of title. So, if you took title as "John Smith" when you are really, legally, "Mary Jones," you would have to use the John Smith name in disposing of the property, or your buyer would be in deep doo-doo because his title would be based on a deed from someone not in the chain of title. In short, when you dispose of these properties, you'll have to use the same name under which you acquired them. One possible quick cure would be to quitclaim them to yourself, but this would perhaps engender an attempt to reassess or to make one of your identities seem to be liable for a capital gain. Escaping these problems may make an "in house" transfer a bad idea.

Now, the second issue......

Exactly how is your spouse attempting to get his or her hooks into these properties? Either they are legally yours, by whatever name held, or they aren't. There is a clear division of the property of married couples into hers, his, and the marital community's. If these two properties were and are unquestionably your separate property, due to ownership before marriage, gift, or inheritance, you can only lose ownership by a written instrument changing their ownership, or perhaps by using community funds for mortgage payments, improvements, etc., in which case the community might get a small "pro tanto" interest.

The assumed-name holding of title is of no consequence unless you were trying to deceive or defraud someone, e.g., your spouse.

If you care to elucidate on how your spouse is threatening your ownership, please contact me directly and I'll try to give you a further analysis.

Re: name use on title

Unclear from the facts provided. The other attorney cites this case -- Overton v. Harband (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 455 and Estate of Baker (2002) 2002 WL 1943475. I agree, your intent and the circumstances matter. How did you take title to the properties and when? Why did you take title to the properties in the other name?

However, I would go one step further and note a little more clearly that the source of the funds to acquire title to those properties will affect the outcome.

I have an associate who is close to you and knows your local rules, call me.

Re: name use on title

You can adopt whatever name you want under CA law, as long as it's not for unlawful or fraudulent purposes. It's nice that you choose to honor your grandparents by adopting their name.

Although I don't practice family law, if I can be of assistance, please let me know. I'm in San Francisco.