Case No. 6D2025-2101Lower Tribunal No. 2025-CC-000052
MICHAEL V. GREENAN,
Appellant,v.
HOMETOWN TITLE & CLOSING SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee.
Appeal from the County Court for Charlotte County.
Sean Lux, Judge.
July 24, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005)(“Moreover, we consistently have stated that proper preservation entails threecomponents. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection.Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, ‘[i]n order foran argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention assertedas legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.’” (quotingSteinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982))); Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v.
Original opinion page 2
2Robinson, 135 So. 3d 331, 333 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“To preserve an issue forappellate review, the appellant must have obtained, inter alia, a ruling in the lowertribunal.” (citing Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)));Stanton v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 129 So. 3d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“It isa well-established maxim of appellate practice that ‘[c]laims for which an appellanthas not presented any argument, or for which he provides only conclusoryargument, are insufficiently presented for review and are waived.’” (quotingHammond v. State, 34 So. 3d 58, 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))).WOZNIAK, MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur.Michael V. Greenan, Mathews, Virginia, pro se.Jennifer L. Mantoni, of Mantoni Legal, P.A., Port Charlotte, for Appellee.NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARINGAND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion