Representative Image (AI-generated)
A Florida couple faced this situation after their bank reversed four mortgage payments made in 2015 without explaining why. A mortgage dispute can become complicated when a lender’s own accounting records leave borrowers questioning how much they owe. the lender eventually refused to accept further payments, and the couple stopped paying Although they continued making monthly payments for nearly two more years. The dispute eventually reached an appeals court after a trial judge ruled that the bank had failed to prove a mortgage default.
In an opinion dated November 4, 2026, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal reversed that decision in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Fernandez, case number 2D2025-1819. Despite this, the couple continued making monthly payments from August 2015 through April 2017, and the bank accepted them. In 2017, the bank initially filed a foreclosure lawsuit but voluntarily dismissed it before trial. In January 2021, it filed another foreclosure action, claiming the couple had defaulted on payments beginning January 1, 2017, and all subsequent installments. During the bench trial, Dianna acknowledged that the couple’s last accepted payment was made in April 2017. The judge relied on the unexplained reversal of the four earlier payments, Dianna’s credible testimony and the bank’s decision to return the May 2017 payment and refuse subsequent attempts to pay. The majority pointed out that the undisputed evidence showed the couple had not made payments from June 2017 onwards.
The reversals placed the loan four payments behind according to the bank’s records. The ruling , available on Justia, revived the bank’s foreclosure case against Michael and Dianna Fernandez. However, the court also directed the lower court to exclude the four disputed payments and certain related interest and fees when calculating the outstanding debt. However, the payment records did not explain why the transactions had been reversed. At the trial, the bank’s representative could not provide a definite reason and could only speculate about the circumstances that might normally cause such reversals. Dianna testified that she had made all four payments and that the money had never been returned to her. The Fernandezes disputed the allegation, arguing that they had made their payments until the bank stopped accepting them. They also maintained that the lender’s own actions had created the alleged default. She also admitted that they had not made further payments and did not have sufficient funds to bring the mortgage current when the new foreclosure action was filed. The trial judge ruled in the couple’s favour, finding that the bank had failed to establish a default. The bank appealed the judgment. The appeals court agreed that the bank had failed to explain the four reversed payments. However, it found that this accounting problem did not eliminate the couple’s separate obligation to continue making their monthly mortgage payments. Each missed monthly installment constituted a separate default under Florida law.