The Blank Copy Behind the Title Cloud

RECORD CHAIN

1. The served packet and the recorded title notice are two different documents. The City's enforcement was served as a mailed Notice and Order packet, and the two Proofs of Service enumerate its components; the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding is not one of them M123. That instrument reaches the property's title by recording M122. Across the closed-as-complete productions the file shows no completed inspection report and no completed property-specific findings document behind either R.25-3549 R.26-1549.
2. The title instrument, produced blank. The Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding places a public encumbrance on the property under H&S Code 17980/17985 M122. As the City produced it, its case-specific block ends at a blank signature line M122 and its notary certificate of acknowledgment is entirely empty — no date, no notary, no signature M123.
3. The acknowledgment certificate is unexecuted. 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," and the notary completes it "under PENALTY OF PERJURY" M123. In the produced instrument that certificate shows no signer, no notary, and no date.
4. The produced page is an exemplar over an unsigned copy. On the produced page a blank *SAMPLE* copy of the same notice — older "Title 8" wording, the prior "personally known to me" acknowledgment without the penalty-of-perjury line, signatory "Willie Harris, Principal Building Inspector" — sits above the unsigned case-specific block, with two "Space above this line for Recorder's use" headers marking the two copies M122. Neither copy is a completed instrument.
5. The exemplar's named signatory is a current City official. 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 are dated under "Willie Harris, Principal Building Inspector" over a "By ____ Paul" line M543 M554. The order in this packet follows the same structure — "Dated 04/12/2023 Bo Cosley, Principal Building Inspector," over "By ____ Paul" M124; the signature-authority question that structure raises is developed in Card 5.
6. The executed copy appears only on the County Recorder image, dated after the cover letter's statement. The signed, notarized, recorded version is not in the City's production; it is a standalone County Recorder image — Lemos's signature, Ramos's 04/25/2023 notarization, the 05/08/2023 4:45:14 PM recorder stamp, Doc 202305081060 EX1. The 04/12/2023 cover letter mailed to the owner stated the Declaration "has been recorded with the County Recorder" M123; the County's stamp is 05/08/2023, 26 days later. The letter described the instrument as recorded before the County recorded it.
7. The inspection predicate the file does not contain. City code commences substandard- and dangerous-building proceedings only after the building official has "inspected or caused to be inspected" the building SCC.8.100.700 SCC.8.96.130; the state statute parallels that structure HSC.17980.C.1 and governs the recording of the notice HSC.17985. The packet recites the determination as already made M124, but the file the City closed as complete R.25-3549 R.26-1549 shows no completed inspection report or property-specific findings document behind it, only the incomplete B31/B59 Correction List M125. The single pre-order observation is a neighbor-lot exterior glance, carried in Card 2 and Card 7; this card cross-links that predicate rather than re-proving it.

FULL CIRCLE

The recorded notice exists in two states in the record. In the City's produced case file, the case-specific copy is unexecuted: blank signature line, blank notary date, no notary, no signature M122 M123. In the County Recorder image, the instrument is signed by Peter Lemos, notarized on 04/25/2023, and recorded on 05/08/2023 EX1. The City's mailed packet proof does not list the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding as a served component; the cover letter states the Declaration "has been recorded" M123.

The City may argue: the produced page is just a file copy and the operative instrument is the executed one recorded with the County; the Chief had positional authority to sign; and recorder timing is independent of service and appeal deadlines.

That answer narrows the issue but does not remove it. If the County image is the operative instrument, the City's production still omitted the executed copy and produced only the blank form. The cover letter's April 12 statement that the Declaration had been recorded does not match the May 8 recorder stamp. And whichever copy controls, the recorded notice rests on the same predicate gap as the order: the produced file shows no completed inspection report or property-specific findings behind a recorded title encumbrance, only the B31/B59 Correction List M125 Card 2 Card 4.

The finding rests on three record facts: the cover letter stated the Declaration had been recorded 26 days before the County's recording date; the City's case file contains only a blank copy of the instrument; and the produced file contains no completed inspection or findings record behind the recorded enforcement notice.