at 1005. The lender subsequently filed another foreclosure action, based on a different default. Id. Despite the fact that judgment had been entered against the lender in the first action after an acceleration, the Florida Supreme Court held that res judi-cata did not bar the second suit. 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. 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>), For example, a mortgagor may prevail in a
holding that a mortgage transfer does not take effect until the mortgagee gives value in exchange for the mortgage holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose holding that a mortgagee can successfully recover twice on one mortgage for multiple periods of default because the payments were different installments