622 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also 1 Kendall Coffey, Florida Foreclosures § 26.01 (1994). The purpose of the compulsory counterclaim is to promote judicial efficiency by requiring defendants to raise claims arising from the same “transaction or occurrence” as the plaintiffs claim. The courts have defined “transaction or occurrence” with a “broad realistic interpretation” in order to avoid numerous lawsuits from the same facts. Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14 (Fla.1992); Stone v. Pembroke Lakes Trailer Park, Inc., 268 So.2d 400, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Looking at the instant facts, the buyers here are going against the actual sellers who, according to these purchasers, made the faulty repairs at issue. See Kovach v. McLellan, 564 So.2d 274, 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(<HOLDING>). In summary we conclude that the instant
holding that federal express fee required by lender was a transaction imposed by the lender as incident to the extension of credit and needed to be disclosed within the finance charge holding lender might be held responsible for buyers alleged damages where facts indicated lenders active participation in the sale of the residence or the existence of a special relationship between the lender and the borrower holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full holding the lender hable when after borrower defaulted the lender took control of borrowers finances determined which creditors were paid and loaned the borrower money for the purpose of paying employees on condition that none of the money be used to pay withholding taxes recognizing the existence of the special relationship