Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Yapkowitz, 199 A.D.3d 126

2005: Fred and Elaine Yapkowitz (married co-borrowers) executed a $532,000 mortgage; they defaulted in 2009.
30‑day default notices were mailed separately to each borrower; a 90‑day RPAPL §1304 pre‑foreclosure notice was later mailed jointly to both borrowers in a single envelope (certified and first‑class); certified receipt was signed "F. Yapkowitz."
Plaintiff (Wells Fargo) acquired the mortgage, commenced foreclosure in 2013, and moved for summary judgment relying on servicer business records and the certified‑mail receipt.
Supreme Court found plaintiff failed strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 because the 90‑day notice was mailed jointly in one envelope and denied relief; after post‑trial motions were denied, the court dismissed the complaint as to the Yapkowitzes.
On appeal the Second Department affirmed: RPAPL 1304 requires a 90‑day notice addressed and mailed separately to each borrower; a single joint notice in one envelope is insufficient. A dissent (Dillon, J.P.) would have found the joint mailing sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mailing one 90‑day notice jointly addressed to multiple borrowers in a single envelope satisfies RPAPL §1304	Jointly addressed envelope and enclosed notices named each borrower; certified + first‑class mailings constituted the required notice to both borrowers	Statute requires separate notice to each borrower in a separate envelope; one certified receipt by husband doesn’t prove notice to wife	Mailing a single envelope jointly addressed to multiple borrowers is insufficient; plaintiff must mail a separate 90‑day notice to each borrower in separate envelopes
Whether servicer business‑record affidavits and a certified‑mail receipt can prove compliance	Servicer affidavits and certified‑mail receipt demonstrate notices were mailed and delivered	Affidavits lacked personal knowledge as to each discrete mailing; delivery signed by one borrower does not establish separate notice to each borrower	Even assuming admissible business records and a certified receipt, joint mailing in one envelope fails RPAPL §1304’s separate‑mailing requirement; strict compliance not met

Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d 95 (2d Dep’t 2011) (each borrower entitled to 90‑day RPAPL §1304 notice)
Citibank, N.A. v. Conti‑Scheurer, 172 A.D.3d 17 (2d Dep’t 2019) (plaintiff bears burden to prove strict compliance with RPAPL §1304)
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Porfert, 187 A.D.3d 1110 (2d Dep’t 2020) (RPAPL §1304 strict compliance is a condition precedent to foreclosure)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Trupia, 150 A.D.3d 1049 (2d Dep’t 2017) (postal proof may be used to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL §1304)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Panzer, 189 A.D.3d 1109 (2d Dep’t 2020) (reinforcing strict‑compliance requirement for RPAPL §1304)