context: While it is true that a foreclosure action and an acceleration of the balance due based upon the same default may bar a subsequent action on that default, an acceleration and foreclosure predicated upon subsequent and different defaults present a separate and distinct issue.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 587 So.2d 629, 630
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a mortgagee can successfully recover twice on one mortgage for multiple periods of default because the payments were different "installments"
citation_a.sentence: See[ Olympia Mortgage Corp. v. Pugh, 774 So.2d 863, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)] (“We disagree that the election to accelerate placed future installments at issue.”); see also Greene v. Boyette, 587 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that a mortgagee can successfully recover twice on one mortgage for multiple periods of default because the payments were different “installments”), For example, a mortgagor may prevail in a foreclosure action by demonstrating that she was not in default on the payments alleged to be in default, or that the mortgagee had waived reliance on the defaults.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 774 So.2d 863, 866
citation_b.parenthetical: "We disagree that the election to accelerate placed future installments at issue."
citation_b.sentence: See[ Olympia Mortgage Corp. v. Pugh, 774 So.2d 863, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)] (“We disagree that the election to accelerate placed future installments at issue.”); see also Greene v. Boyette, 587 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that a mortgagee can successfully recover twice on one mortgage for multiple periods of default because the payments were different “installments”), For example, a mortgagor may prevail in a foreclosure action by demonstrating that she was not in default on the payments alleged to be in default, or that the mortgagee had waived reliance on the defaults.