Is one expiation sufficient for all oaths if the مكلف (person bound by religious obligations) is Hanbali and has applied the predominant opinion in his madhhab that one expiation suffices for various oaths for which expiation has not been made previously?

Regarding the issue of someone who swore multiple oaths on different matters, and then broke all of them without atoning for any, there are two views in the Hanbali school:

1. A single expiation suffices. This is the official position of the school (madhhab) and is held by the majority. Qadi Abu Ya'la chose this view, and Abu Bakr mentioned that Imam Ahmad reverted to it. 2. An expiation is required for each oath. This is the view supported by Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni, and it is the opinion of most scholars. They argued that these are separate oaths, where breaking one does not entail breaking the others, and due to the multiplicity of breaches, unlike overlapping hudud (punishments).

If he atoned for breaking one of them, and then broke others, a second expiation is undoubtedly required of him.