Michael v. Greenan v. Hometown Title & Closing Services, LLC

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2025-2101 Lower 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 three

components. First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection.

Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, ‘[i]n order for

an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted

as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.’” (quoting

Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982))); Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Robinson, 135 So. 3d 331, 333 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“To preserve an issue for

appellate review, the appellant must have obtained, inter alia, a ruling in the lower

tribunal.” (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 is

a well-established maxim of appellate practice that ‘[c]laims for which an appellant

has not presented any argument, or for which he provides only conclusory

argument, are insufficiently presented for review and are waived.’” (quoting

Hammond 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 REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED