Summary
holding that failure to raise specific argument with regard to paragraph twenty-two notice below prevented review on appeal
Summary of this case from Mace v. M&T BankOpinion
No. 3D16–70
12-21-2016
Susanne LOUNDIN, Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee.
Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellant. Kass Shuler, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellee.
Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellant.
Kass Shuler, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellee.
Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
In this appeal of a judgment of foreclosure entered after a trial, appellant's first argument—that the Bank's failure to specify a unit number on the letter sent to her constitutes a failure to meet the notice requirements—was not raised below and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g. , Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Comm. , 625 So.2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993). Appellant's second argument—that she was not properly served a copy of the complaint—was not properly preserved because she failed to provide a transcript of the hearing at which her motion to dismiss in this regard was denied or a transcript reflecting any evidentiary support for her argument in this regard. See, e.g. , Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (noting that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error and without a transcript, the appellate court cannot conclude whether the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or alternative theory).
Affirmed.