distribution award, we have noted the Husband’s argument as to his Social Security disability benefits. However, the Husband did not preserve the issue of whether federal law prohibits the treatment of Social Security disability benefits as marital assets because he did not make that specific argument in the trial court. See Naples v. Naples, 967 So.2d 944, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (determining that because the husband failed to raise in the trial court the issue of whether federal law regarding the nonassignability of veterans’ benefits precluded enforcement of an alimony provision, the husband failed to preserve the issue for review), review denied, 981 So.2d 1200 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 246, 172 L.Ed.2d 186 (2008); Moss v. Moss, 939 So.2d 159, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we do not reach the issue of the
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court