Singleton v. Greymar Associates

840 So. 2d 356, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2570, 2003 WL 729059
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 5, 2003
DocketNo. 4D02-667
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 840 So. 2d 356 (Singleton v. Greymar Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Singleton v. Greymar Associates, 840 So. 2d 356, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2570, 2003 WL 729059 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sukonik, P. v. Wallack, H.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais
188 So. 3d 938 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Christiana Trust v. Taveras
186 So. 3d 50 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
In re Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC
773 S.E.2d 101 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
Lauren J. Schindler v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
190 So. 3d 102 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Rodriguez v. Bank of America, N.A.
49 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (S.D. Florida, 2014)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Bartram
140 So. 3d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Singleton v. Greymar Associates
882 So. 2d 1004 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
840 So. 2d 356, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2570, 2003 WL 729059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-greymar-associates-fladistctapp-2003.