discussed Cited as authority (rule) K & M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC The Legislature thus and not one we can consider as properly presented for appellate review.”) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Jackmore v. Est. of Jackmore, 145 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (declining to consider an argument only raised in the summary-of-the-argument section of the initial brief) and Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (declining to consider a “perfunctory argument” with “no caselaw or other authority” provided in support)); see Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Isaaih X Ash v. State of Florida Jackmore v. Est. of Jackmore, 145 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (declining to consider an argument only raised in the summary-of-the- argument section of the initial brief); see also Henderson v. State, 569 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (declining to consider a “perfunctory argument” with “no caselaw or other authority” provided in support).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) FREDERICK JOHNSON v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, A FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g." This is not a case involving a “single-sentence, non-supported, and non-elaborated ‘argument.’” See Jackmore v. Est. of Jackmore, 145 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (refusing to review such an “argument” tucked away in an initial brief’s summary of the argument).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lana v. Assimakopoulos-Panuthos See, e.g., Heldt-Pope v. Thibault, 198 So.3d 650, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1) but reversing the award of costs because “section 57.105(1) does not provide for the award of costs”); Siegel v. Rowe, 71 So.3d 205 , 210 n.2, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing cost award under section 57.105(1) against attorneys as unauthorized but affirming it against the party under section 57.041(1)); Jackmore v. Estate of Jackmore, 145 So.3d 170, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing award of costs under section 57.105 because such an award “is not auth…

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lana v. Assimakopoulous-Panuthos See, e.g., Heldt- -5- Pope v. Thibault, 198 So. 3d 650, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming award of attorney's fees under section 57.105(1) but reversing the award of costs because "section 57.105(1) does not provide for the award of costs"); Siegel v. Rowe, 71 So. 3d 205 , 210 n.2, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing cost award under section 57.105(1) against attorneys as unauthorized but affirming it against the party under section 57.041(1)); Jackmore v. Estate of Jackmore, 145 So. 3d 170, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing award of costs under section 57.105 because such an award "is not auth…