What did the appeals court decide about the loan modification?

The court reversed the part of the trial court’s order that reformed the loan modification to add the wife’s signature because there is a genuine factual dispute about whether she intended to sign, so that issue cannot be decided on summary judgment.

Why were the attorney’s fees reversed?

Because the trial court awarded attorney’s fees without holding an evidentiary hearing and there was no stipulation or waiver, the appeals court reversed the fee award and sent that issue back for proper proceedings.

What parts of the judgment remain in effect?

All other aspects of the trial court’s final summary judgment—such as foreclosure, reestablishment of the lost note, and declaratory relief not related to the reformation issue—were affirmed.

Who is affected by this decision?

The borrowers (Travis Musser and Regina Sidner) and the lender/trust (Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB) are directly affected because the case returns to the trial court for further proceedings on reformation and attorney’s fees.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Potentially yes; parties may seek further review if they file a timely and authorized motion under Florida appellate rules or pursue review in the Florida Supreme Court if appropriate.

Musser, Sidner v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Residential Credit Opportunities Trust VII-A

Docket 1D2024-2714

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

Filed: May 6, 2026 · today
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
Docket: 1D2024-2714

Appeal from the circuit court's final summary judgment of foreclosure, reestablishment of lost note, declaratory relief, reformation of a loan modification, and award of attorney's fees

Summary

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed a final summary judgment of foreclosure that also reestablished a lost note, reformed a loan modification to add the wife’s signature, and awarded attorney’s fees. The court held that there was a genuine factual dispute over whether the wife intended to sign the modification, so reformation by summary judgment was improper. The court also found that attorney’s fees required an evidentiary hearing and reversed that award. All other challenges were either unpreserved or meritless, so the remainder of the trial court’s order was affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issues Decided

Whether summary judgment was appropriate to reform a loan modification to add the wife’s signature when the parties dispute her intent to sign
Whether an award of attorney’s fees can be entered without an evidentiary hearing or a stipulation/waiver
Whether other challenges to the trial court’s foreclosure-related rulings were preserved or had merit

Court's Reasoning

Reformation of a written agreement requires either a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake plus inequitable conduct, and because the record showed a genuine dispute over whether the wife intended to sign the modification, summary judgment on reformation was improper. Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded without an evidentiary hearing unless there is a stipulation or waiver, and the record contained neither, so the fees award was reversed. The remaining arguments were either not preserved or lacked merit, so the court affirmed those aspects of the judgment.

Authorities Cited

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a)
Smith v. Royal Auto. Group, Inc.675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
Joyner v. Worley264 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Parties

Appellant: Travis S. Musser
Appellant: Regina Ann Sidner
Appellee: Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust VII-A
Judge: Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz

Key Dates

Opinion date: 2026-05-06

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed on reformation claim at trial court
The trial court must address the disputed factual issue of whether Mrs. Musser intended to sign the loan modification, which may require additional discovery and a trial or an evidentiary hearing.
2
Hold evidentiary hearing on attorney’s fees
The trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness and entitlement to attorney’s fees unless the parties stipulate or waive the hearing.
3
Consult counsel about preservation and appeals
Parties should consult their attorneys to identify any preserved issues for further litigation and to determine whether to seek rehearing or higher appellate review within the applicable deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide about the loan modification?: The court reversed the part of the trial court’s order that reformed the loan modification to add the wife’s signature because there is a genuine factual dispute about whether she intended to sign, so that issue cannot be decided on summary judgment.
Why were the attorney’s fees reversed?: Because the trial court awarded attorney’s fees without holding an evidentiary hearing and there was no stipulation or waiver, the appeals court reversed the fee award and sent that issue back for proper proceedings.
What parts of the judgment remain in effect?: All other aspects of the trial court’s final summary judgment—such as foreclosure, reestablishment of the lost note, and declaratory relief not related to the reformation issue—were affirmed.
Who is affected by this decision?: The borrowers (Travis Musser and Regina Sidner) and the lender/trust (Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB) are directly affected because the case returns to the trial court for further proceedings on reformation and attorney’s fees.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Potentially yes; parties may seek further review if they file a timely and authorized motion under Florida appellate rules or pursue review in the Florida Supreme Court if appropriate.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2024-2714
                  _____________________________

TRAVIS S. MUSSER and REGINA
ANN SIDNER,

    Appellants,

    v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, as Owner Trustee
of the Residential Credit
Opportunities Trust VII-A, et
al.,

    Appellees.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Jennifer J. Frydrychowicz, Judge.

                            May 6, 2026


PER CURIAM.

     Appellants challenge the trial court’s order granting
Appellee’s motion for a final summary judgment of foreclosure,
reestablishment of lost note, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees.
The order also reformed Appellant, Travis Musser’s, loan
modification agreement with Appellee’s predecessor in interest to
include the signature of Appellant, Regina Musser, who is Mr.
Musser’s wife.
     We turn first to the reformation of the loan modification
agreement. Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ.
P. 1.510(a). Florida courts have held that a writing should be
reformed when it fails to reflect the parties’ actual agreement due
to either (a) a mutual mistake of the parties or (b) a unilateral
mistake on the part of one party paired with inequitable conduct
by the other. See Smith v. Royal Auto. Group, Inc., 675 So. 2d 144,
150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (citing Providence Square Ass’n, Inc., v.
Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366, 1372 n.3 (Fla. 1987)).

     In the proceedings below, Appellee supported its request for
reformation by arguing that Mrs. Musser’s signature was left off
of the loan modification due to a mutual mistake. Appellants
disputed that Mrs. Musser intended to sign the loan modification.
Based on Appellants’ arguments and the record before us, we find
that this dispute was both material and genuine. We therefore
find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on
Appellee’s request for reformation, and we reverse the portion of
the trial court’s order that reformed the loan modification
agreement.

     Turning next to the attorney’s fees, absent a stipulation or a
waiver, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees must be determined
at an evidentiary hearing. See Joyner v. Worley, 264 So. 3d 260,
261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (citing Giovanini v. Giovanini, 89 So. 3d
280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)). The trial court did not hold an
evidentiary hearing on the fees, and the record contains no
stipulation or waiver. Thus, we reverse the portion of the trial
court’s order that awarded attorney’s fees to Appellee.

     Appellants raised several other arguments challenging
several other aspects of the order. We find that these arguments
were all either meritless or unpreserved, and so we affirm the
remainder of the trial court’s order. We remand this case for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and BILBREY and LONG, JJ., concur.

                                 2
               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Carrie Vaughn Cromey and Melissa Condon Onacki of Legal
Services of North Florida, Pensacola, for Appellants.

Melisa Manganelli of the Law Offices of Manganelli, Leider &
Savio, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellee Wilmington Savings Fund
Society, FSB, As Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit
Opportunities Trust VII-A.




                             3