You are here: / / ALTHOUGH ONLY STEPHEN BOTT SIGNED THE NOTE, BOTH HE AND CHRISTINE BOTT...
,

ALTHOUGH ONLY STEPHEN BOTT SIGNED THE NOTE, BOTH HE AND CHRISTINE BOTT SIGNED THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE CHRISTINE BOTT WAS A “BORROWER” ENTITLED TO SEPARATE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304; THE JOINT NOTICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to notify both borrowers of the foreclosure action violated RPAPL 1304 and required that defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted. Although only Stephen Bott signed the note, he and Christine Bott executed the mortgage instrument. Therefor the joint RPAPL 1304 notice was invalid:

Although Stephen Bott was the only signatory to the note, both he and Christine Bott executed the mortgage, and Christine Bott is identified as a borrower on the first page of the mortgage. “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” … . Therefore, Christine Bott was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . Since it is undisputed that a jointly addressed 90-day notice, rather than individually addressed notices in separate envelopes, was sent to the defendants, the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304, and the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Bott, 2024 NY Slip Op 02524, Second Dept 5-8-24

Practice Point: A person obligated to pay the mortgage is a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 even if that person did not sign the note. Each “borrower” is entitled to separate notice of the foreclosure. Here, the joint notice was invalid and defendant-borrowers’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

You might also like
INJURY FROM A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLEW OVER ONTO PLAINTIFFS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6); QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
SURVEILLANCE TAPE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BY DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THE TAPE ACCURATELY DEPICTED WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT EXPLAINED OR WERE WRONGLY EXPLAINED, THE WAIVER WAS INVALID, THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION BY THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT A LEVEL ONE DE BOUR INQUIRY, THE SWITCHBLADE DEFENDANT THREW AWAY WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.
THE ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF STUDENT BY ANOTHER STUDENT HAPPENED IN SO SHORT A TIME IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PRIOR MOTION HAS BEEN DENIED ON PROCEDURAL GOUNDS “WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW,” THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW THE PRIOR MOTION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESENTING NEW FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
“Filed Rate Doctrine” Precluded Lawsuit Alleging Unreasonable Premium
CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE INVOICES FOR ATTORNEY’S... SUPREME COURT DID NOT CITE ANY “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” TO...