Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2014–2024 · 2 courts · …a new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action. at p. 403 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2017 · …new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action. ✓ Topic ↗
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: HSBC Bank Mortgage Corp. (USA) v. Lees (fladistctapp, 2016-08-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) HSBC Bank Mortgage Corp. (USA) v. Lees
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. LHF Hudson, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. LHF Hudson, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. U.S. Bank National Association
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
This is because “[a] new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action.” Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Singleton, 882 So.2d at 1005 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) AVELO MORTGAGE, LLC. v. VERO VENTURES, LLC. etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Star Funding Sols., LLC v. Krondes, 101 So. 3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Etc. v. Beauvais (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Singleton allows for multiple actions for individual defaults with accompanying accelerations. .In Singleton , the Florida Supreme Court held that “successive foreclo sure suits, regardless of whether or not the mortgagee sought to accelerate payments on the note in the. first suit,” were not barred if, as here, the second suit was predicated on a. new default, because a “subsequent, and separate alleged default create[s] a new default and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note in a subsequent foreclosure action.” Singleton, 882 So.2d at 1008 (emphasis add…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
E.g., Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.2004); Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal, 147 So.3d 32, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 2010-3 SFR Venture, LLC v. Garcia
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
This is because “[a] new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action.” Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Singleton, 882 So.2d at 1005 ).
cited Cited "see" Green v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
M.D. Fla. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bartram, 211 So.3d at 1018 (citing Star Funding Sols., LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).
cited Cited "see" PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004,1005 (Fla.2004)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Evergrene Partners, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004, 1008 (Fla.2004) (holding that “doctrine of res judicata does not necessarily bar successive foreclosure suits, regardless of whether, or not the mortgagee sought to accelerate payments on the note in the first suit.”); see also Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Star Funding Solutions, LLC v. Krondes, 101 So.3d 403, 403 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) (“A new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action....
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STAR FUNDING SOLUTIONS, LLC
v.
John J. KRONDES
No. 4D11-3378.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov 21, 2012.
101 So. 3d 403
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20226
Jerrold J. Golson of Florida Foreclosure Attorneys, PLLC, Clearwater, for appellant., John J. Krondes and Florence T. Krondes, Darien, CT, pro se.
Damoorgian, Taylor, Warner.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #43,800 of 633,719
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (3)
DAMOORGIAN, J.

Star Funding Solutions, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to vacate the order dismissing with prejudice its foreclosure action against John and Florence Krondes, and others. We affirm and write only to address the impact of the dismissal with prejudice on any subsequent act of default of the terms of the mortgage between Star Funding and the Krondes. A new default, based on a different act or date of default not alleged in the dismissed action, creates a new cause of action. Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.2004). Thus, the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Star Funding’s first foreclosure action does not preclude Star Funding from instituting a new foreclosure action. Id. at 1006. (“[R]es judicata does not prevent mortgagees from foreclosing on a mortgage in successive foreclosure cases when the alleged dates of default are different.”).

Affirmed.

WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.