Court reverses parts of Florida foreclosure ruling over missing spouse signature

A Florida appeals court has reversed parts of a foreclosure judgment over a missing spouse's signature on a loan modification. 

The decision landed on May 6, 2026, from Florida's First District Court of Appeal. The opinion is short, but it carries a useful warning for anyone running point on default servicing or foreclosure work in Florida. 

Here is how it played out. Travis Musser signed a loan modification with the predecessor in interest to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, which now holds the loan as owner trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust VII-A. His wife, Regina Ann Sidner, did not sign. When the loan ended up in foreclosure in Escambia County, that one missing signature turned into the whole ballgame. 

Wilmington went in with a big ask. It wanted final summary judgment of foreclosure, reestablishment of a lost note, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, and reformation of the loan modification to add Sidner's signature. The pitch on reformation was mutual mistake. Both sides meant for her to sign, the lender argued, and the omission was just an error the court should clean up. 

Judge Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz granted everything. The Mussers appealed, and that is where the wheels came off. 

Florida courts will reform a written agreement in only two situations. Either both sides made the same mistake, or one side made a mistake and the other did something inequitable. Wilmington was leaning on mutual mistake. The Mussers pushed back hard and disputed that Sidner ever intended to sign the modification at all. No intent to sign, no shared mistake, no reformation. 

The appellate panel saw a real factual dispute on whether Sidner meant to sign. That kind of dispute belongs in front of a fact-finder, not on a paper motion. The reformation piece was reversed. 

The attorney's fees award did not survive either. Florida law requires an evidentiary hearing to set reasonable fees, unless the parties stipulate or one side waives. Neither happened here. Citing Joyner v. Worley and Giovanini v. Giovanini, the panel reversed the fee award too. 

The Mussers raised other challenges, but the panel found those either meritless or unpreserved. The foreclosure itself stayed in place. Chief Judge Osterhaus and Judges Bilbrey and Long concurred in the per curiam opinion, and the case was sent back for further proceedings. 

So, what does this mean for you if you work in this space? A few things, in plain terms. 

If a modification is missing a signature, do not count on a court fixing it for you on summary judgment. The moment the borrower disputes intent, the issue goes to fact-finding, and your quick win is gone. That is real time and real money on a file you thought was clean. 

On fees, do not skip the evidentiary hearing. Even when the merits are solid, a fee award without a hearing is an easy target on appeal. Lock in a stipulation, secure a waiver, or hold the hearing. There is no shortcut. 

And if you are the one drafting modifications, this is also a good nudge to double-check who needs to sign before the document goes out. The cleanup later is rarely as easy as it looks.