The Move-Out Clearance Report

The form’s own field structure includes a required line: “30/60 Day Notice Or Three Date Notice Given Date: ___________”. On the form executed against the Gasio tenancy, that line is empty. The form was executed via DocuSign by Anna Ly with this required field left blank.

The form template demands a date that, if entered honestly, places the predicate notice on the four corners of the accounting instrument. Leaving the line blank disconnects the accounting from any predicate notice. The form is engineered to demand the date; the executor declined to enter one.

The form-stated “Rent Amount” on the executed Move-Out form is $5,000 / month. The April 26, 2024 Residential Lease (DocuSign Envelope 46CC8725-F790-DF11-96F5-604580068161) sets the contractual rent at $5,350 / month for the term commencing May 1, 2024. The June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit demands $5,350.00 for the period June 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 — consistent with the lease.

The Move-Out form, prepared by the listing agent for the same landlord on the same property, uses a different rent figure. The arithmetic in the “Rent Owed” line ($10,833) is computed against the form-stated $5,000 figure, not against the contractual rent. The Three-Day Notice and the Move-Out form are mutually inconsistent on the most basic governing variable.

The Move-Out Clearance Report contains a pre-printed line item titled “Attorney Fees” positioned between “Other” and “Total Charges.” On the form executed against the Gasio tenancy, the figure entered on that pre-printed line is $2,005.

California Civil Code § 1950.5(b) enumerates a closed list of permitted security-deposit deductions: unpaid rent; cleaning the premises upon termination; repair of damages exclusive of ordinary wear and tear; and (where the lease so provides) restoration or replacement of personal property. Attorney fees do not appear on the § 1950.5(b) list. The form’s pre-printed line invites a category of deduction the statute does not permit.

Compounding the statutory defect: ¶ 36 of the executed lease caps attorney fees and costs collectively at $1,000. The $2,005 deduction exceeds the contractual cap by $1,005, before any consideration of the statutory bar.

Compounding further: at the date the form was executed (August 5, 2024), no judgment had been entered. The Unlawful Detainer complaint had been filed thirty-three days earlier (July 3, 2024). Trial would not occur until January 27, 2025. The Court’s Under Submission Ruling (Document ID 74522578, Commissioner Snuggs-Spraggins) ultimately set attorney’s fees at $500 — one-quarter of the figure deducted on this form months earlier.

The Move-Out form’s “Repair” line carries the typed description: “Replace carpet due to dog pee bad smell, attached invoice.” Charged amount: $7,835.

The attached invoice in the same DocuSign envelope — Ly Construction Invoice #2412 dated August 14, 2024 — bills the following line items: “Remove carpet and underpad on 2nd floor and stairs — Labor” ($900); “Carpet trash disposal — Labor” ($200); “950 sqft vinyl — Material ($2/sqft)” ($1,900); “Install 950 sqft vinyl — Labor” ($2,175); “Stairnose for stairs — Material” ($322); “Stairnose installation — Labor” ($1,540); “Paint and install 2nd floor basemoding — Material and Labor” ($800).

The form charges the tenant for “carpet replacement.” The cited invoice removes carpet and installs vinyl. Carpet was not replaced — carpet was removed and a different flooring material was installed in its place. The four corners of the document pair contradict each other on what was actually done to the property and what the tenant is being charged for.

Even setting aside the carpet/vinyl mismatch in Defect 4, the underlying transaction described by the Ly Construction invoice is a conversion of the property’s 2nd-floor flooring from carpet to a different and (per market data) higher-grade material. California betterment doctrine bars the charge of a property upgrade against the security deposit of a departing tenant. The tenant’s deposit is not a capital-improvement fund.

Per-square-foot analysis from the four corners of the document pair: the form charges $7,835 for flooring against approximately 790 sqft of 2nd-floor area (the invoice references 950 sqft of vinyl material, of which a portion is wastage; the chargeable installed area is approximately 790 sqft). $7,835 ÷ 790 sqft yields approximately $9.92 / sqft charged to the tenant. Documented cost basis for builder-grade carpet of the type alleged: approximately $0.88 / sqft. Charge multiple: approximately 11.27× documented cost basis.

After three years of ordinary tenancy (May 1, 2022 to August 5, 2024), the depreciated chargeable ceiling under California Civil Code § 1950.5(b)(2) — applying IRS five-year and HUD seven-year useful-life schedules — is approximately $278 to $396. The $7,835 charge exceeds the depreciated statutory ceiling by approximately 20× to 28×.

Ly Construction Invoice #2412 itemizes three discrete materials charges: 950 sqft vinyl — Material at $2/sqft = $1,900; Stairnose for stairs — Material at $23 each × 14 = $322; and the materials portion of the basemoding line ($800 combined material and labor). The invoice’s SALES TAX field is empty. The invoice TOTAL ($7,837) equals the SUBTOTAL ($7,837) with no sales-tax addition.

California Revenue and Taxation Code § 6051 imposes sales tax on tangible personal property sold at retail in California. A licensed contractor (Ly Construction, License #1068334, Bond #GCL5928963) selling materials to a customer in California is required to collect or remit applicable sales tax. The invoice records no such collection. The invoice on its face either (i) does not record a true sales transaction in materials, (ii) records an underground transaction, or (iii) records a transaction structured to avoid the documentary trail of sales-tax collection.

Ly Construction Invoice #2412 SUBTOTAL: $7,837. Move Out Clearance Report Repair-line value: $7,835. Difference: $2.

The two documents in the same DocuSign envelope, transmitted together to defense counsel, do not internally reconcile. The party preparing the Move-Out form did not match the figure on the invoice the form purports to cite. A discrepancy of $2 against a $7,835 figure is small in dollar terms; the existence of the discrepancy is large in evidentiary terms. It establishes that the form preparer either did not read the cited invoice, did not match the cited invoice, or chose not to match the cited invoice. Each option carries its own implications.

The Move Out Clearance Report was executed via DocuSign on August 5, 2024. The Ly Construction Invoice #2412 it cites is dated August 14, 2024 — nine days after the form was executed. Both documents bear the same DocuSign Envelope ID F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D.

An accounting form executed and DocuSign-sealed on Day 0 cannot, by ordinary cause-and-effect, cite an invoice that does not exist until Day 9. Two readings are possible from the four corners of the documents: (i) the form was executed against an anticipated charge for which no invoice yet existed and the invoice was added to the envelope after the form was executed, breaking the integrity of the DocuSign envelope; or (ii) the form was re-executed after the invoice was generated, with the August 5 date retained on the form’s face. Either reading raises chain-of-custody questions on the document pair.

Compounding: the vendor surname Ly on the invoice (Dave Ly, License #1068334) matches the surname of the listing agent of record on the Gasio tenancy — Anna Ly, DRE Broker License #01894348 — the same Anna Ly who executed the Move-Out form. The four corners of the document pair establish that the form executor and the cited invoice vendor share a surname. No related-party disclosure appears on either document. The invoice email contact is binhldb@yahoo.com. Anna Ly’s personal email of record on this matter is lymyhoa@yahoo.com.