Signature pages and a notary seal were not enough to stop the sale
An Ohio appeals court has affirmed a foreclosure after a homeowner failed to produce the terms of her alleged loan modification.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled on October 20, 2026, that signature pages alone - without the deal itself - were speculation, not evidence.
The property at 5027 Hibbs Drive in Columbus had been mortgaged since March 2013, when the homeowner signed a promissory note in favor of Fifth Third Mortgage Company. She stopped paying after December 1, 2022. Fifth Third filed for foreclosure in February 2024.
The case followed a path anyone in default servicing would recognize. It was stayed in October 2024 for loss mitigation. The plaintiff was substituted to Select Portfolio Servicing in February 2025, then to U.S. Bank Trust National Association - as owner trustee for RCAF Acquisition Trust - in September 2025.
Representing herself, the homeowner missed her answer deadline. U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment in December 2025 with the note, mortgage, assignment, payment history, default letter, and a servicer affidavit.
Her defense came down to what she described as “a fully executed and notarized Loan Modification Agreement dated August 1, 2024.” She filed five pages she called the “relevant pages” of that agreement.
Those five pages did not contain the modification’s terms.
The first page referenced an “enclosed modification agreement” but did not include it. It also stated the homeowner was in default and warned U.S. Bank would “complete/resume our collection action as necessary, including foreclosure” if she failed to perform under the proposed deal. The remaining four pages were signature pages with her name, the date, and a notary seal.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment on March 20, 2026, finding nothing showed the modification was executed by the lender, implemented by the servicer, or altered enforcement rights. A foreclosure decree followed on April 7, 2026.
The appeals panel overruled all three assignments of error. At best, the court wrote, her documents “create a mere possibility that a loan modification agreement could have existed between the parties.” Possibility is not enough to survive summary judgment.
For servicers and loss mitigation teams, the takeaway is practical: documentation cuts both ways. A borrower who signs modification paperwork but cannot produce the complete terms has nothing a court will credit against a fully supported foreclosure.
The Tenth District affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
