ZURIAGNE MONTALVO SOLIS
v.
TRUIST BANK, ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellant's appeal was affirmed because she failed to preserve her specific grounds of objection for appellate review.
[1] A party must advance the specific ground of objection relied upon by the trial court in order to preserve that issue for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“fail[ing] to advance the specific ground of objection relied upon by the district court for reversal . . . was not preserved for appellate review.”
Citation to Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010), explaining the preservation requirement for appellate review.
Zuriagne Montalvo Solis appealed a non-final order from Miami-Dade County Court in a case against Truist Bank. The record indicates issues related to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.070(J) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0624 Lower Tribunal No. 22-46097-CC-23 ________________
Zuriagne Montalvo Solis, Appellant,
vs.
Truist Bank, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami- Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge.
Zuriagne Montalvo Solis, in proper person.
Marcadis Singer P.A., and Robert J. Lindeman (Tampa), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(j) (“If service of the initial process and initial pleading is not made on a defendant within 120 days . . . the court, on its own initiative after notice or on motion, must direct that service be effected within a specified time . . . .” (emphasis added)); Borden v. E.-Eur. Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 2006) (“Service of process . . . notif[ies] a party of a legal claim and . . . enables the court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant and proceed to judgment.”); Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010) (“fail[ing] to advance the specific ground of objection relied upon by the district court for reversal . . . was not preserved for appellate review.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”); Proctor v. Schomberg, 63 So. 2d 68, 70 (Fla. 1953) (“[T]he statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded. It cannot be taken advantage of by a motion to dismiss.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Proctor v. Schomberg, 63 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1953)