The produced file shows the recorded HSC 17985 pending-enforcement title cloud S.6 M122, but no recorded final-disposition release — and the phrase "final disposition" appears zero times across all 631 produced pages M001–M631.
The public record for this property contains a formal notice of an open enforcement case, but the City’s files do not describe or include the specific legal document required by state law to officially clear that notice once the matter is resolved. While the Health and Safety Code provides for a "notice of final disposition" to be recorded after a case is settled, this phrase does not appear anywhere in the 631 pages of records the City produced. Instead of this recorded instrument, the City identifies a $150 fee to remove the notice and an administrative process that requires paying all fees and waiting 30 days after the case is closed to request lien releases from a separate office. Although the final notice is not yet due because the case remains open, the produced records show a gap between the City’s internal billing steps and the formal recording requirement needed to clear this flag from the property’s title.
The recorded instrument S.6 M122 — captioned "NOTICE OF PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING OR ACTION" and citing HSC § 17980 and HSC § 17985 on its face, with the executed copy signed by Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief — put a pending enforcement proceeding into the real-property record. HSC § 17985 provides the release side: after final resolution, the enforcement agency records a notice of final disposition in the same recorder's office. The City's own contact letter ties a charge to that recorded notice — "$150 to remove the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action" M117 — but a removal fee is not a recorded release instrument. Across all 631 pages of the May 2026 production the phrase "final disposition" appears zero times M001–M631. The produced file shows the front-end recorded title cloud and an administrative fee path, and no recorded final-disposition instrument for this case.
This card stays narrow: a release-documentation gap, not a present statutory violation — the case is still open M001, so no final-disposition notice is yet due.
When a city decides a building might be unsafe, it can record a public notice against the property so anyone checking the title sees an enforcement case is open — a flag that sits on the property's record. The same state law that lets the city put that flag on HSC § 17985 also says the city is supposed to record a matching "all clear" notice once the case is finally resolved, so the owner has proof the flag came off. In the complete file the City produced and certified as complete, the recorded flag is there S.6 M122, but there is no recorded "all clear" instrument — and the exact words the law uses for it, "final disposition," do not appear anywhere in all 631 pages M001–M631. The city does point to a way out: pay every fee, wait until the case has been closed for 30 days, and contact a separate office to get liens released M040. But that is a billing-and-closing process, not the recorded document the law describes, and it never names the recorded flag at all; the only thing tied to that flag is a $150 fee just to "remove" it M117. The gap only became visible after the owner's representative obtained the full records production and read it page by page, including a note added on the city's side in May 2026 describing the fee-and-closure process.
Its header reads "NOTICE OF PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING OR ACTION (California Health and Safety Code 17980 and 17985)" HSC § 17980 HSC § 17985; a blank "*SAMPLE*" template (Willie Harris) precedes the executed copy for this case (Peter Lemos, Case 23-009185) on the same page M122. The recorded version of this instrument is Doc 202305081060 S.6.
HSC § 17985 provides for the enforcement agency, after final resolution, to record a notice of final disposition in the same county recorder's office.
The recorded pending-enforcement notice has its own removal charge: "$150 to remove the Notice of Pending Enforcement Proceeding or Action" M117. That is a fee to take the notice down, not an instrument that records its removal.
A separate recorded instrument, the Declaration of Sub-Standard Building, "will be cleared when permits are finalized and fees, including a $150.00 Termination fee, are paid" M123. That sentence addresses the Declaration, not the pending-enforcement notice.
The 05/01/2026 activity-log entry states "Termination cannot be requested until all fees are paid and the case has been closed for 30 days" and advises "contacting Bonds & Assessments to get the lien releases of the resolution numbers" M040. That is a fee/closure process and a special-assessment lien-release channel through a different office — not the recorded county instrument HSC § 17985 calls for, and it does not name Doc 202305081060.
None of these charges or paths is the recorded final-disposition instrument, names the official responsible for recording it, or shows a case-specific step to record the removal of the pending-enforcement title cloud from the real-property record. The phrase "final disposition" appears nowhere in the 631 produced pages M001–M631.
The same statute the City used to put the proceeding into the real-property record — HSC § 17985 — also provides for a recorded final-disposition notice after final resolution. The produced file shows the front-end recorded title cloud S.6 M122, two separate removal-fee references M117 M123, and a 05/01/2026 activity note describing a fee/closure termination process and a special-assessment lien-release channel M040. It shows no recorded final-disposition notice; the phrase "final disposition" appears nowhere in the 631 pages M001–M631. The City's own records show the public enforcement flag was recorded against the property, but show no recorded document — and not even the legal phrase for one — that would let the owner verify how that flag is removed from the real-property record.
A produced, recorded "Notice of Final Disposition" for Case 23-009185 from the Sacramento County Recorder, or a recorded release/satisfaction instrument tied to Doc 202305081060, would disprove this claim. The 05/01/2026 termination/lien-release activity note M040 does not: it describes an administrative fee-and-closure process and a separate special-assessment lien-release channel, not the recorded county instrument the statute provides for. Absent that recorded instrument, disproving the claim would require the City to contradict the record production it has already closed as complete — see the completeness trap C47.
Anticipated City defense: the notice of final disposition is required only after the case is finally resolved; the case is currently open M001; and the record already identifies the practical path to release — pay all fees, wait for 30-day case closure, and contact Bonds and Assessments for the lien releases, exactly as the 05/01/2026 activity note M040 advises.
Answer: Conceded in part: because the case is still open M001, no recorded final-disposition notice is yet due, and this card does not claim a present statutory violation. The 05/01/2026 activity note M040 is a real, produced description of the fee-and-closure termination process and the special-assessment lien-release channel. That process is not the recorded county instrument HSC § 17985 provides for, and it does not address the pending-enforcement notice (Doc 202305081060); the fee to "remove" that notice sits separately M117. The surviving point is documentation: the production shows the recorded cloud and an administrative termination process, but no recorded final-disposition instrument or recorded release that would let an owner verify how the HSC § 17985 title cloud itself comes off the real-property record once the case finally resolves.
---