GWENDOLYN SINGLETON AND WILLIAM SINGLETON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
GREYMAR ASSOCIATES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that res judicata does not bar a subsequent foreclosure action when the second action is based on a new and different breach of the underlying debt, distinct from the breach litigated in the first action.
Appellee filed a foreclosure action based on appellants' failure to make payments from September 1, 1999, which was dismissed with prejudice. Appellee…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subsequent Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the summary final judgment of foreclosure. Even though an earlier foreclosure action filed by appellee was dismissed with prejudice, the application of res judicata does not bar this lawsuit. The first foreclosure action sought relief due to appellants’ failure to make payments from September 1, 1999 onward, with interest accruing from August 1, 1999 through February 1, 2000; this foreclosure action was based on appellants’ failure to make payments from April 1, 2000 onward, with interest accruing from March 1, 2000 through July 1, 2001. The second action involved a new and different breach.
In Capital Bank v. Needle, 596 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we wrote:
Our reading of the case law ... leads us to conclude that a final adjudication in a foreclosure action that also prays for a deficiency judgment on the underlying debt may, but does not necessarily, bar a subsequent action on the debt. For instance, if the plaintiff in a foreclosure action goes to trial and loses on the merits, we do not believe such plaintiff would be barred from filing a subsequent foreclosure action based upon a subsequent default. The adjudication merely bars a second action relitigating the same alleged default.
Id. at 1138 (emphasis in original); see also Olympia Mortgage Corp. v. Pugh, 774 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review denied, 791 So. 2d 1100 (Fla.2001).
AFFIRMED.
STEVENSON, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016)…e]ven though an earlier foreclosure action filed by appellee was dismissed with prejudice, the application of res judicata does not bar this lawsuit. The second action involved a new and different breach.’ ” Id. (citing Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 840 So. 2d 356, 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). Singleton petitioned this Court for jurisdiction, citing an express and direct conflict with Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., 150 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Id. Stadler also involved two successive foreclosure…
-
Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 840 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., 150 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons set out below we ap…1 / 2
-
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Beauvais, 188 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…f any subsequent foreclosure case, [*960] and forever precluded the lender from suing the borrower on the note and mortgage. ' On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary-judgment, Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 840 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the district court’s affirmance.16, 17 The Supreme Court determined that res judicata does not necessarily bar a subsequent action based on a subsequent default. Singleton, 882 So. 2d at 1005…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hampton Enters., Inc. v. Adelman, 596 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Cap. Bank v. Needle, 596 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Pugh, 774 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)