of his debts the payment should apply in the event she prevailed on them all. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to support this argument, nor did the former wife ever make it at trial. She is therefore precluded from raising it for the first time here because it “must [have been] presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must [have been] part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved [for appeal].” Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985). The former wife argues that the former husband in his financial affidavits admitted a $550,000 marital debt, completely disregarding that the affidavits themselves identify the amount as “estimated.” See West v. West, 399 So.2d 428, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). The former wife also argues that the $422,000
holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit holding that restrictions for the public welfare were permissible even though the restrictions resulted in serious financial loss to the owner holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that penalty clauses are enforceable unless they are found to be grossly unreasonable holding that estimated figures in a financial affidavit are permissible if not grossly overstated or reasonable