Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

U.S. Bank Trust National Ass’n v. Hernandez, 2017 IL App (2d) 160850

Appellate Court 

Caption

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Owner Trustee 

for Queen’s Park Oval Asset Holding Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

JOSE HERNANDEZ and MARIA HERNANDEZ, DefendantsAppellants.

District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-16-0850

Filed October 12, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 14-CH-3; the Hon. 

Luis A. Berrones, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Vacated and remanded.

Counsel on

Appeal

Daniel S. Khwaja, of Chicago, for appellants.

Louis J. Manetti, Jr., of Codilis & Associates, P.C., of Burr Ridge, for 

appellee.

Panel JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Hudson concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Justice Schostok specially concurred, with opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Defendants, Jose Hernandez and Maria Hernandez, appeal the summary judgment entered 

in favor of plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, on its complaint to foreclose a 

mortgage. Defendants argue that material questions of fact exist on two issues: (1) whether 

plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose on the mortgage and (2) whether plaintiff complied with a 

federal regulation, specifically Title 24, section 203.604, of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(Code) (24 C.F.R. § 203.604 (2014)), prior to initiating the foreclosure proceeding. We hold 

that plaintiff’s standing was established as a matter of law but that material questions of fact 

remain on whether plaintiff complied with section 203.604. Therefore, we vacate the summary 

judgment and remand for further proceedings. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 On January 2, 2014, plaintiff filed its complaint to foreclose a mortgage on property owned 

by defendants. Plaintiff identified the original mortgagee as “Mortgage Electronic Registration 

Systems, Inc. as Nominee for Franklin American Mortgage Company.” Plaintiff attached a 

copy of the subject mortgage, dated June 9, 2008. In support of its claim to be the current 

mortgagee, plaintiff attached a copy of a note, also dated June 9, 2008 (the Note). The Note 

bore two indorsements. The first was an indorsement from Franklin American Mortgage 

Company to Countrywide Bank, FSB (Countrywide). The second was a blank indorsement 

from Countrywide, signed by its senior vice-president, Laurie Meder. Neither indorsement 

was dated. 

¶ 4 After the trial court struck without prejudice defendants’ initial affirmative defenses, 

defendants refiled their answer and affirmative defenses. Their first affirmative defense was 

that plaintiff lacked standing because the indorsements on the Note were inadequate to show 

that plaintiff held the debt when it filed its complaint. Their second defense was that plaintiff 

failed to comply with section 203.604, which required plaintiff to have, or reasonably attempt 

to have, a face-to-face meeting with defendants before seeking foreclosure. Id.

¶ 5 In February 2016, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, attaching several documents 

that bear on the issues in this appeal. First, plaintiff attached several affidavits from Kacy 

Prather, who identified herself as a foreclosure supervisor with Roundpoint Mortgage 

Servicing Corporation (Roundpoint). The affidavits were all dated in 2015. According to 

Prather, Roundpoint was “currently servic[ing] [defendants’] loan on behalf of Plaintiff” and 

had “acquired the servicing rights for [the] loan on 09/16/13 from Bank of America N.A.” 

Prather averred that, in April 2012, plaintiff’s agents “visited the subject property” in an 

attempt to have a face-to-face meeting with defendants. Prather also attached a copy of an 

April 2012 letter addressed to defendants at the subject property. The sender was Titanium 

Solutions (Titanium), identifying itself as the mortgage servicer for Bank of America, N.A. 

The letter advised defendants that a representative from Titanium would attempt to visit 

defendants regarding their loan. Prather attached what she claimed was “a copy of the FedEx 

Label for the package in which the letter was sent.” The label, which was computer-generated, 

showed a “ship date” of April 20, 2012, included a tracking number, and bore the instruction, 

“LEAVE AT ADDRESS. DON’T RETURN.”

¶ 6 In addition to Prather’s affidavits, plaintiff attached copies of two assignments of the 

subject mortgage. The first was an August 15, 2013, assignment from “Bank of America N.A., 
- 3 - 

successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP FKA Countrywide Home Loans 

Servicing, LP” to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The assignment 

specified that it included “the Note or Notes *** described” in the subject mortgage. The 

second assignment was a January 16, 2014, assignment from HUD to plaintiff. This 

assignment did not reference any underlying debt. 

¶ 7 Defendants filed a response, contending that the August 2013 assignment to HUD raised 

an issue of material fact whether plaintiff owned the debt on January 2, 2014, when it filed its 

complaint. Defendants also claimed that the January 16, 2014, assignment was immaterial to 

whether plaintiff owned the debt at an earlier date. 

¶ 8 Defendants further asserted that a triable question of fact existed as to plaintiff’s 

compliance with section 203.604(d) because, according to Prather, plaintiff’s April 2012 letter 

was sent by Federal Express when section 203.604(d) expressly provides that the letter 

offering a face-to-face meeting should be sent through the United States Postal Service. See 24 

C.F.R. § 203.604(d) (2014) (“A reasonable effort to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the 

mortgagor shall consist at a minimum of one letter sent to the mortgagor certified by the Postal 

Service as having been dispatched.”). Defendants attached an affidavit from defendant Maria 

Hernandez (Maria), who asserted in relevant part: 

“10. I have never received a certified letter by mail from Plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust 

National Association, the purported previous note holder, Bank of America, N.A.; one 

of their servicers, or affiliates, for notice of available counseling, or been offered a 

face-to-face meeting at either the Plaintiff’s or the previous lender’s local banks, or 

other H.U.D. related servicing office.”

¶ 9 The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff and entered a judgment of 

foreclosure and sale. Defendants filed a motion to reconsider, to which they attached a 

document from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation indicating that Countrywide was 

inactive as of April 27, 2009, having merged on that date into Bank of America. Defendants 

concluded that the blank indorsement by Countrywide could have been executed no later than 

April 2009 and was, accordingly, “mooted” by the later August 2013 assignment from Bank of 

America to HUD. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider. 

¶ 10 Subsequently, plaintiff purchased the subject property at a judicial sale and moved the 

court to approve the sale. Defendants filed an objection. They attached documentation 

showing that the August 2013 assignment of the subject mortgage from Bank of America to 

HUD was recorded on January 23, 2014, several days after plaintiff instituted this foreclosure 

proceeding. The trial court rejected defendants’ arguments and entered an order confirming the 

sale. 

¶ 11 Defendants filed this timely appeal. 

¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 13 A. General Principles 

¶ 14 Defendants claim that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of 

plaintiff. Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions 

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 

5/2-1005(c) (West 2014). Thus, the purpose of summary judgment is not to try a question of 
- 4 - 

fact but rather to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Adams v. Northern 

Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32, 42-43 (2004). In determining whether such a question exists, a 

court must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits strictly against the 

movant and liberally in favor of the opponent. Id. at 43. “A triable issue precluding summary 

judgment exists where the material facts are disputed, or where, the material facts being 

undisputed, reasonable persons might draw different inferences from the undisputed facts.” Id.

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the right of the movant is clear and free from 

doubt. Id. Our review of a summary judgment ruling is de novo. Id. 

¶ 15 B. Standing 

¶ 16 Defendants claim that a material question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff had standing 

to foreclose on the mortgage. We disagree. 

¶ 17 “The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a 

controversy from bringing suit.” Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 

248, 262 (2004). A party’s standing must be determined as of the time the suit is brought. 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gilbert, 2012 IL App (2d) 120164, ¶ 15. Lack of standing 

is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and prove. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial 

Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010). 

¶ 18 Plaintiff’s claim of authority to foreclose on the subject mortgage was based on its 

possession of the Note with its blank indorsement. A note indorsed in blank is payable to the 

bearer. See 810 ILCS 5/3-205(b) (West 2014) (“When indorsed in blank, an instrument 

becomes payable to the bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until 

specially indorsed.”). A transfer of a note constitutes an assignment of the mortgage securing 

the debt, and thus the bearer of the note is deemed the mortgagee, authorized to bring 

foreclosure proceedings. US Bank, National Ass’n v. Avdic, 2014 IL App (1st) 121759, ¶ 35; 

Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Kuipers, 314 Ill. App. 3d 631, 635 (2000); see 735 ILCS 

5/15-1208 (West 2014) (defining “mortgagee” as “(i) the holder of an indebtedness or obligee 

of a non-monetary obligation secured by a mortgage or any person designated or authorized to 

act on behalf of such holder and (ii) any person claiming through a mortgagee as successor”). 

Plaintiff’s possession of the Note, indorsed in blank, was sufficient to establish standing absent

a contrary showing. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Rogers, 2016 IL App (2d) 150712, ¶ 30 

(“In a foreclosure action, attaching the note to the complaint is prima facie evidence that the 

plaintiff owns the note.”); Lipscomb v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc., 343 Ill. App. 

3d 1036, 1041 (2003) (a prima facie case is sufficient to establish a point in the absence of 

contrary evidence (citing Lehman v. Stephens, 148 Ill. App. 3d 538, 551 (1986))). 

¶ 19 Defendants suggest that plaintiff’s attachment of a mere copy of the Note was inadequate 

to create a prima facie case. They cite no authority here, which is no surprise since 

well-established law holds to the contrary. See Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Cornejo, 2015 

IL App (3d) 140412, ¶ 12 (“The attachment of a copy of the note to a foreclosure complaint is

prima facie evidence that the plaintiff owns the note.”); Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Korzen, 

2013 IL App (1st) 130380, ¶ 26 (“For over 25 years, the [Illinois Mortgage] Foreclosure Law 

[(735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq. (West 2010))] has been interpreted as not requiring plaintiffs’ 

production of the original note, nor any specific documentation demonstrating that it owns the 

note or the right to foreclose on the mortgage, other than the copy of the mortgage and note 
- 5 - 

attached to the complaint.” (Emphasis omitted.)); First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of 

Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 155 Ill. App. 3d 664, 665-67 (1987). 

¶ 20 Defendants also claim that plaintiff’s own documentary support for summary judgment 

undercut its showing of standing. Defendants point specifically to the August 15, 2013, 

assignment of the subject mortgage from Bank of America to HUD. According to defendants, 

this assignment raises a triable question of fact whether the subject mortgage was held by HUD 

when plaintiff filed this action several months later in January 2014. Defendants suggest that 

the recording of the August 2013 assignment on January 23, 2014, after the complaint was 

filed, makes it even more likely that HUD, not plaintiff, owned the debt when the suit was 

brought. As for the January 16, 2014, assignment of the subject mortgage from HUD to 

plaintiff, defendants claim that it is “inconsequential” to whether plaintiff possessed the 

subject debt when it filed its complaint several days before. Defendants also assert that the 

January 2014 assignment could not have transferred the subject debt in any case since it did not 

reference that debt. 

¶ 21 Plaintiff counters defendants’ position on the August 2013 assignment by pointing to 

Prather’s statement in her 2015 affidavits that Roundpoint had “acquired the servicing rights 

for [defendants’] loan on 09/16/13 from Bank of America N.A.” Plaintiff asks us to construe 

this remark as meaning that plaintiff “had an interest in the loan before it filed [its action].” The 

difficulty is that Prather did not specify for which entity Roundpoint began servicing the loan 

in September 2013. Her affidavits simply do not indicate when, prior to May 19, 2015 (the date 

of her earliest affidavit), plaintiff obtained the Note. 

¶ 22 Irrespective of Prather’s affidavits, however, plaintiff’s standing was established as a 

matter of law. Defendants dismiss the blank indorsement on the Note as a “snapshot in time of 

a much earlier date, one that preceded the assignment of the [N]ote to [HUD].” Defendants fail 

to appreciate the force of the blank indorsement. The presumption of ownership conferred by 

the indorsement meant that plaintiff could sue on the Note without setting forth its history. 

Defendants, rather, had the burden of providing as much of that history as necessary to 

demonstrate that “the transfer [of the Note] did not occur before the complaint was filed.” 

Cornejo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140412, ¶ 13. Defendants “could have, through depositions or 

interrogatories, definitively shown when plaintiff obtained an interest in the mortgage.” 

Rosestone Investments, LLC v. Garner, 2013 IL App (1st) 123422, ¶ 25. Like the defendant in 

Rosestone, defendants did not make this effort below. Instead, they pointed, and continue to 

point on appeal, simply to another “snapshot in time,” the August 15, 2013, assignment. 

Assuming arguendo that the August 15, 2013, assignment conveyed the subject debt to HUD, 

it simply did not rebut the possibility that plaintiff became the owner of that debt sometime 

between August 15, 2013, and January 2, 2014 (the date that plaintiff filed its complaint), 

whether from HUD or another entity in the chain of ownership. Even the recording of the 

August 2013 assignment as late as January 23, 2014, did not rebut plaintiff’s ownership of the 

debt on January 2. 

¶ 23 As for the January 16, 2014, assignment from HUD to plaintiff, we agree with plaintiff that 

it is plausibly explained as a memorialization of a prior transfer of the Note to plaintiff. See id.

(“Even when a written assignment exists, it may be a mere memorialization of an earlier 

transfer of interest.”).

¶ 24 Defendants cite Title 24, section 203.351, of the Code (24 C.F.R. § 203.351 (2014)), which 

prescribes what must be contained in an application for federal mortgage insurance when a 
- 6 - 

mortgage is assigned to HUD. Defendants’ reason for citing it is obscure; they appear to 

suggest that the provision explains why the subject mortgage was assigned to HUD. Our 

concern is not why the August 2013 assignment was made but whether it raises an issue of 

material fact regarding standing. As explained, the assignment did not rebut plaintiff’s 

prima facie case that it owned the debt on January 2, 2014, as evidenced by its possession of 

the Note indorsed in blank.

¶ 25 For these reasons, we hold that defendants failed to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie case of 

standing. As plaintiff established as a matter of law that it had standing, summary judgment on 

that issue was proper. 

¶ 26 C. Compliance With Section 203.604 

¶ 27 Defendants’ second contention on appeal is that summary judgment was inappropriate on 

the issue of plaintiff’s compliance with section 203.604 of the Code.

¶ 28 As defendants’ mortgage was insured by HUD, it was subject to specific servicing 

requirements. See 24 C.F.R. § 203.500 (2014); Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Moore, 

609 F. Supp. 194, 196 (N.D. Ill. 1985). The failure to comply with HUD’s servicing 

requirements is a defense to a mortgage-foreclosure action. PNC Bank, National Ass’n v. 

Wilson, 2017 IL App (2d) 151189, ¶ 18. 

¶ 29 Section 203.604(b) requires that “[t]he mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with 

the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly 

installments due on the mortgage are unpaid.” 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b) (2014). “A reasonable 

effort to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor” has two elements. 24 C.F.R. 

§ 203.604(d) (2014). First, it “shall consist at a minimum of one letter sent to the mortgagor 

certified by the Postal Service as having been dispatched.” Id. Second, it “shall also include at 

least one trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property.” Id. A mortgagor may not 

institute foreclosure proceedings before complying with section 203.604. See 24 C.F.R. 

§ 203.500 (2014). 

¶ 30 We note initially that, in the midst of their argument on the “attempt-by-letter” 

requirement, defendants make the passing remark that “no visit to the property was ever 

conducted.” Prather claimed otherwise in her affidavit. As defendants do not acknowledge her 

statement or cite any other part of the record to support their point, we reject it as forfeited. See 

Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016) (failure to provide supporting record citations results 

in forfeiture of a point). 

¶ 31 The gravamen of defendants’ challenge is that plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirement 

that it attempt by letter to arrange a face-to-face meeting. According to defendants, plaintiff’s 

use of Federal Express, as evidenced by a shipping label that plaintiff produced from the 

carrier, was inadequate because section 203.604(d) specifies that the letter must be sent by the 

United States Postal Service. Plaintiff cites Rourk v. Bank of America National Ass’n, No. 

4:12-CV-42 (CDL), 2013 WL 5595964, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2013), where the foreclosure 

plaintiff sent the letter “via Federal Express with delivery confirmation.” The trial court held 

that, while this delivery method did not “strictly comply with the certified mail requirement, it 

[did] substantially comply with the requirement that the letter be certified as having been 

dispatched.” Id.
- 7 - 

¶ 32 We do not decide whether the use of a private carrier can constitute substantial compliance 

with the “attempt-by-letter” requirement of section 203.604(d), for even if we construed the 

section in plaintiff’s favor, we would hold that plaintiff failed to comply with its requirements. 

Plaintiff concedes that even substantial compliance with section 203.604(d) would entail proof 

from the carrier that the letter was “dispatched” (24 C.F.R. § 203.604(d) (2014)) or sent. See 

Wilson, 2017 IL App (2d) 151189, ¶ 23 (“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of section 

203.604(d) requires proof from the United States Postal Service that the letter was sent.”). 

Here, a material question of fact remains on whether plaintiff’s letter offering a face-to-face 

meeting was dispatched. Plaintiff claims that the “unique tracking identifier” on the Federal 

Express label is “proof that the letter was sent.” We disagree. The label is not indubitable proof 

of dispatch. We take judicial notice of the procedures for shipping packages with Federal 

Express. See id. (taking judicial notice of the Postal Service’s shipping options). The label 

submitted by plaintiff was computer-generated. Federal Express’s website permits a user to 

generate labels for shipment. The user selects the ship date, and a tracking number is assigned. 

See FedEx Ship Manager® Software User Guide, FedEx 25-28, 

http://images.fedex.com/us/software/pdf/FSM_UserGuide_v3000.pdf (last visited Sept. 14, 

2017) (user manual describing process of creating a label); Shipping Services and Online 

Shipping Tools, FedEx, https://www.fedex.com/us/shipping (last visited Sept. 14, 2017) 

(video describing process of creating a label); Tracking Your Shipping Business, FedEx, 

http://www.fedex.com/us/smallbusiness/articles/trackingshippingbusiness.html (last visited 

Sept. 14, 2017) (“A tracking number is a numeric code assigned to every package in the 

shipping system; it uniquely identifies each package as it moves through the shipping 

channels. It is assigned when transport is arranged—the tracking number appears on the 

shipper’s forms if you use paper-based method, or is assigned automatically if you arrange for 

shipment online.”). The user might or might not actually ship the item after generating the 

label. FAQs for FedEx Ship Manager Software, FedEx, 

http://www.fedex.com/us/ship-manager/software/resources/faq.html (last visited Sept. 14, 

2017) (noting that a shipping label can be generated up to 10 days in advance of shipment). In 

short, a shipping label—complete with shipping date and tracking number—can be generated 

independently of actual shipment. See Geathers v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 

1:14-cv-00850-WSD-AJB, 2015 WL 5089347, at *7 (S.D. Ga. July 6, 2015) (Federal Express 

shipping label, with “no tracking information or other documentation showing that the package 

was actually dispatched or delivered,” did not satisfy the letter requirement of section 

203.604(b)). Notably, Federal Express offers proof of delivery (FedEx® Tracking, FedEx, 

https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?action=spod&cntry_code=cv (last visited Sept. 14, 

2017)), which the plaintiff in Rourk submitted. Plaintiff offered no such proof here. A 

movant’s entitlement to summary judgment must be free and clear from doubt. Adams, 211 Ill. 

2d at 43. The shipping label does not demonstrate conclusively that plaintiff sent defendants a 

letter offering a face-to-face meeting. 

¶ 33 We stress that we do not hold today that the use of a private carrier can never satisfy section 

203.604(d). We do not reach that issue because, as plaintiff concedes, proof of dispatch would 

be required in any case, and we determine here that plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of 

law that it dispatched the letter.

¶ 34 Plaintiff alternatively argues lack of prejudice. First, as plaintiff reads Maria’s affidavit, 

she asserted only that defendants received no letter from the Postal Service offering a 
- 8 - 

face-to-face meeting, not that they received no such letter at all. We disagree. Maria did 

specifically deny that defendants received a letter by certified mail from the Postal Service, but 

at the end of the same sentence she also generally denied being “offered a face-to-face meeting 

at either the Plaintiff’s or the previous lender’s local banks, or other H.U.D. related servicing 

office.” Construing Maria’s affidavit in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must, we 

read her as denying that she received any letter offering defendants a face-to-face meeting. 

¶ 35 Second, plaintiff asserts that defendants’ history of delinquency on their mortgage 

payments suggests that they could not have avoided foreclosure even if offered a face-to-face 

meeting. Plaintiff’s only authority for this contention is Wilson, where this court held that the 

offer of a face-to-face meeting pursuant to section 203.604 would have been futile because the 

debt was discharged in bankruptcy, and hence “there was no contract to remediate or 

ameliorate.” Wilson, 2017 IL App (2d) 151189, ¶ 25. In so holding, this court articulated the 

general principle that “[w]here a mortgagor alleges only a technical defect in notice and fails to 

allege any resulting prejudice, vacating the foreclosure to permit new notice would be futile.” 

Id. ¶ 24. The case from which Wilson derived this proposition, Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. 

Pajor, 2012 IL App (2d) 110899, ¶ 27, interpreted an Illinois statute on notice in foreclosure 

proceedings (735 ILCS 5/15-1502.5 (West 2010)). 

¶ 36 Wilson grafted the no-prejudice principle, a creature of Illinois state law (as far as Pajor

indicates), onto a federal regulation. In the absence of direction from the federal courts, to 

which plaintiff does not refer us, we decline to extend the principle to a situation so unlike that 

of Wilson and to hold that noncompliance with section 203.604 may be excused in cases of 

inevitable foreclosure (however that may be determined). Accordingly, we reject plaintiff’s 

contention. 

¶ 37 We conclude that summary judgment was improper because plaintiff did not establish as a 

matter of law that it complied with section 203.604(d). 

¶ 38 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 39 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the summary judgment and judgment of foreclosure 

and sale, and we remand this case for further proceedings. 

¶ 40 Vacated and remanded. 

¶ 41 JUSTICE SCHOSTOK, specially concurring. 

¶ 42 I write separately due to concerns over judicial economy that are created by situations such 

as present in this case. The plaintiff relies on Rourk for the proposition that the use of Federal 

Express was sufficient to comply with the requirements of section 203.604(d) of the Code. 

However, Rourk suggested that Federal Express was a substitute for the United States Postal 

Service only upon proof of receipt. Rourk, 2013 WL 5595964, at *5. Here, the plaintiff 

provided neither proof of dispatch nor proof of receipt. The present situation, and the 

needlessly extended proceedings on remand, could clearly have been avoided had the plaintiff 

simply provided an affidavit stating that the letter required by section 203.604(d) had been sent 

or some other proof of dispatch. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, we are required to remand 

for further proceedings.