ALTHOUGH “ALICE” DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, SHE WAS NAMED AS A “BORROWER” IN THE MORTGAGE DOCUMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined “Alice,” who was named as a “borrower” in the mortgage document, was entitled to the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure notwithstanding that she did not sign the note:

Alice was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Alice did not sign the subject note, she executed the mortgage as “Borrower,” she was identified as a borrower on the first page of the mortgage agreement, and she agreed in the mortgage agreement to pay the amounts due under the note. “‘Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a “borrower” in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a “borrower” for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured'” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Maddox, 2026 NY Slip Op 06084, Second Dept 10-21-26

Practice Point: Here “Alice” was named as a “borrower” in the mortgage document she did not sign the note. She was still entitled to the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure.