The Blank Copy Behind the Title Cloud

Case 23-009185 | Card 12 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The document that clouds the title of 4880 T Street exists in the City's own file only as a blank. The case file holds the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action [M122] as two unsigned copies on one page — a form marked SAMPLE above a case-specific block that ends at an empty signature line under the name Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief — and, at the top of the next page, a notary certificate with no date, no notary, and no signature [M123]. The executed instrument is not in the file. It is on the County Recorder's image [EX1]: signed by Peter Lemos, notarized April 25, 2023, recorded May 8, 2023 at 4:45:14 PM as Doc 202305081060, reciting that the City has determined that a substandard and/or dangerous building is present on the property, has commenced a proceeding to abate it, and that the owner has been so notified.

The owner had been warned. The City's March 21, 2023 letter said that if the owner did not call within ten days it would take enforcement action, "including recording a Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action against your property" [M117] "(please see attached Notice)" [M117], and that "Recording of this Notice will be in conjunction with the issuance of a Notice and Order" [M117]. The inspector's log for April 11, 2023 reads "I also ordered a Cloud be placed on the title and a Title report be done" [M024]. The letter mailed with the April 12, 2023 order then said "A Declaration of Sub-Standard Building regarding this property has been recorded with the County Recorder." [M123] — twenty-six days before the County's stamp. The notice itself is not among the papers the City's proof of service lists as mailed [M131] with that order. The file's own document index carries the line "Recorded Cloud" [M013] — "cd23-009185.pdf" [M013], dated 05/20/2023, "Document added through batch scanning process" [M013], 63 KB; the pages under the "*CD23-009185*" [M123] barcode in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] are the unsigned notice [M122] and the empty certificate [M123]. The statute the notice cites requires it to be recorded "at the time of the commencement of the action or proceeding" [HSC.17985], and the City's code commences that proceeding after the building official has "inspected or caused to be inspected" the building (Card 2: what the City's file holds as that inspection — a look from a neighboring lot two days before the order). The file the City produced in May 2026 [R.26-1965.1] holds the blank copy and not the recorded one, and no report or findings from an inspection of the property before the order.

The City's own index says a "Recorded Cloud" [M013] was scanned into this case on May 20, 2023, and the pages under that barcode in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] are unsigned [M122] and un-notarized [M123]. What did the City send to the County for recording, and on what date — when the inspector's log ordered the cloud on April 11 [M024], the letter mailed April 12 said it "has been recorded" [M123], the County's stamp is May 8 [EX1], the recorded instrument says the owner "has been so notified" [EX1] of a notice the proof of service [M131] does not list, and the order behind it carried a list that said neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected [M125] — and where in that file is the executed copy the index says it scanned?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The document that clouds the title works by being recorded at the County, not by being mailed. The City's March 21 letter [M117] warned it would come with the order; the inspector ordered the cloud on April 11 [M024]; the April 12 letter [M123] said it was already recorded; the County stamped it May 8 [EX1]. The City's index says a Recorded Cloud [M013] was scanned in on May 20, 2023, but what it produced under that barcode is a blank copy [M122] — no signature, no notary. The signed one exists only on the County's image, which says the owner "has been so notified." Behind it sits the same list [M125] that said neither inside nor outside had been completely inspected. The question for the City: what did you send to the County, when, and where is the executed copy your index says you scanned?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. March 21 – April 11, 2023 — the warning, and the order for the cloud. The City's March 21, 2023 letter [M117] told the owner that enforcement would include "recording a Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action against your property" [M117], referred to an attached notice, and said the recording "will be in conjunction with the issuance of a Notice and Order" [M117]. On April 11, 2023 the inspector logged "I also ordered a Cloud be placed on the title and a Title report be done" [M024]; the same day the index lists a merge document "HSG - Cloud.htm" [M013]. What the owner had at that point was a form and a warning; the form had not been signed, notarized or recorded.
  2. April 12, 2023 — the letter says recorded; the packet does not carry the notice. The City's enforcement was served as a mailed Notice and Order packet, and the two Proofs of Service [M123-132] enumerate its components; the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding is not one of them. That instrument reaches the property's title by recording [M122]. In the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] there is no completed inspection report and no completed property-specific findings document behind either.
  3. April 12, 2023 — what the file holds behind the recorded notice. City code commences substandard-building proceedings only after the building official has "inspected or caused to be inspected" the building, and the dangerous-building chapter carries the same inspection-before-proceedings structure [SCC.8.96.130(B)(2)]; the state statute parallels that structure [HSC.17980] and governs the recording of the notice [HSC.17985]. The packet recites the determination as already made [M124], but the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] shows no completed inspection report or property-specific findings document behind it, only the incomplete B31/B59 Correction List [M125]. What the record shows of the pre-order observation is carried in Card 2 and Card 7; this card cross-links that predicate rather than re-proving it.
  4. April 25 – May 8, 2023 — the executed copy, on the County's image only. The signed, notarized, recorded version is not in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1]; it is a standalone County Recorder image [EX1] — Lemos's signature, Ramos's 04/25/2023 notarization, the 05/08/2023 4:45:14 PM recorder stamp, Doc 202305081060. The 04/12/2023 cover letter [M123] mailed to the owner stated the Declaration "has been recorded with the County Recorder" [M123]; the County's stamp [EX1] is 05/08/2023, 26 days later. The letter described the instrument as recorded before the County recorded it.
  5. May 20, 2023 — the index logs a Recorded Cloud; the pages under its barcode are blank. The document index in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] carries "Recorded Cloud" [M013] — "cd23-009185.pdf" [M013], 05/20/2023, "Document added through batch scanning process" [M013], 63 KB. The pages that file holds under the "*CD23-009185*" [M123] barcode are the unsigned case-specific notice [M122] and the empty notary certificate [M123]. The City logged a recorded cloud twelve days after the County's stamp [EX1]; what it produced under that entry is the blank.
  6. September 2, 2025 — the SAMPLE's printed name, on the second order in this case. Willie Harris is a City Principal Building Inspector who appears elsewhere in the production: the 09/02/2025 Notice and Orders in this same case (one [M543], a second [M554]) are dated under "Willie Harris, Principal Building Inspector" [M543] over a By line signed by Paul Lovato, Building Inspector 4 [M543]. The order in this packet follows the same structure — "Dated: 04/12/2023 Bo Cosley, Principal Building Inspector" [M124], over a By line signed by Paul Lovato, Building Inspector III [M124]; the signature-authority question that structure raises is developed in Card 5.
  7. May 22, 2026 — the instrument as the City produced it: blank. The Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding [M122] places a public encumbrance on the property under H&S Code 17980 [HSC.17980]/17985 [HSC.17985]. As the City produced it, its case-specific block ends at a blank signature line [M122] and its notary certificate of acknowledgment [M123] is entirely empty — no date, no notary, no signature.
  8. May 22, 2026 — the notary certificate as produced: empty. The certificate states its function on its face: it "verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document … and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document" [M123], and the notary completes it "under PENALTY OF PERJURY" [M123]. In the produced instrument [M123] that certificate shows no signer, no notary, and no date.
  9. May 22, 2026 — a SAMPLE over an unsigned copy. On the produced page [M122] a blank *SAMPLE* copy of the same notice — older "Title 8" [M122] wording, the prior "personally known to me" [M122] acknowledgment without the certification line, the name Willie Harris [M122] printed over the title Principal Building Inspector [M122] above an empty signature line — sits above the unsigned case-specific block, with two "Space above this line for Recorder's use" [M122] headers marking the two copies. Neither copy is a completed instrument.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the produced page is a file copy, and the operative instrument is the executed one recorded with the County.

Then the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] omitted the operative instrument and produced the blank under the index line that names it "Recorded Cloud" [M013]. The letter mailed with the order [M123] described the recording as already done on April 12, 2023; the County's stamp is May 8, 2023 [EX1]. And the instrument the County holds recites two things: a determination that a substandard and/or dangerous building is present — the determination the order recites on a list that says neither interior nor exterior had been completely inspected (Card 2: the look from a neighboring lot the file holds as the inspection) — and that the owner "has been so notified" [EX1], of an instrument the proof of service [M131] does not list.

The City's second available answer is that the "Declaration of Sub-Standard Building" [M123] the letter names and the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding are different instruments.

One instrument was recorded against this title in 2023, Doc 202305081060 [EX1], and the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] carries no executed copy of any recorded instrument for this case, under either name. Whichever name the City gives it, the owner was told on April 12 that it was recorded, and it was recorded on May 8.

The City's third available answer is that the owner had notice: the March 21, 2023 letter [M117] enclosed the form and said the recording would come with the order, the inspector ordered the cloud on April 11 [M024], and the index shows the recorded copy was scanned on May 20, 2023 as "cd23-009185.pdf" [M013].

Each of those pages is in the file and each is conceded. None of them is the executed instrument. The March letter enclosed an unsigned form and a warning; the log entry is an order to record, not a recording; the index line is a 63 KB scan the City did not produce as executed — what sits under its barcode is the blank [M122]. Between them they fix two dates the City's own pages cannot reconcile: April 12, 2023, when the letter said the declaration "has been recorded" [M123], and May 8, 2023, when the County recorded it [EX1].

Section 17985 has a second half: the agency "shall record a notice of final disposition" [HSC.17985] immediately following final resolution. The City's File Summary Report records this case as Status Closed, Close Date 06/18/2026, Disposition Work Completed [R.26-2487.2] (Card 39: the day-old permit that closed the case).

What the City holds as that notice is a second blank. Its File Summary Report of 08/18/2026 (R.26-3395.5) logs, on 07/20/2026, HSG - TERM-S/DB: "All fees are paid, waived or lien." [R.26-3395.5] — "Requesting [R.26-3395.5] Cloud to be terminated." [R.26-3395.5] The form released with that report (R.26-3395.4) is headed "TERMINATION OF NOTICE OF PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING OR ACTION" [R.26-3395.4] and recites the notice "recorded as Book 20230508, Page 1060, on 05/08/2023, in the Office of the County Recorder of Sacramento County, is no longer in force or effect" [R.26-3395.4], over the name Peter Lemos — above an empty signature line, with a notary certificate that reads "On , before me , Notary Public, personally" [R.26-3395.4] and carries no date, no notary and no signature, and no recorder's stamp. Sixty-one days after "Work Completed", the file the City exported on 08/18/2026 holds no executed termination of the notice it recorded on 05/08/2023.

What would defeat this card is one of three pages inside the May 2026 case file: the 63 KB "cd23-009185.pdf" [M013] the index lists, produced as the executed and recorded instrument; a City transmittal or recorder's receipt dated on or before April 12, 2023; or a completed inspection report or property-specific findings for 4880 T Street dated before the April 12, 2023 order. The file, closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1], holds neither. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

Request 26-3403 [R.26-3403.1], received August 18, 2026, asks for the notice of final disposition — its recording date and County Recorder document number — or the record of any decision not to record one. On August 28, 2026 the City closed it (R.26-3403.2) — at 11:44am, and again at 11:52am after reopening it to correct an e-mail address — with "Referred to city website or portal; referred to outside agency/jurisdiction." [R.26-3403.2]: "A portion of the record(s) you are seeking have already been released to the public as part of a prior City of Sacramento public records request" [R.26-3403.2] — Request 26-3395, whose extract holds the unsigned form above — and "contact Sacramento County for lien records" [R.26-3403.2]. Asked for the recorded disposition, the City produced a blank and sent the requester to the County.

On August 29, 2026 Request 26-3619 [R.26-3619.1] asked the City for its own record: The executed Termination of Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action for Case 23-009185 [R.26-3619.1], the recorder's document number and date, or an express statement that it has not been executed or recorded.

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES