*1 Before EMAS, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See NLG, LLC v. Hazan, 151 So. 3d 455, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (noting a party’s “prior suit on the promissory note and recordation of a judgment on the note was not an election of remedies precluding the later enforcement of the mortgage.”); Nikooie v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 424, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (noting the parties needed to have paid documentary stamp and intangible taxes on the principal mortgage amounts claimed by them); Barton v. MetroJax Prop. Holdings, LLC, 207 So. 3d 304,

307 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“‘[Section] 701.02’s recording requirement is applicable only to (and enforceable by) competing creditors or subsequent bona fide purchasers of the mortgagee , not by the mortgagor.’” (quoting JP Morgan Chase v. New Millennial, LC, 6 So. 3d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); § 95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (providing that the statute of limitations is five years for “[a]n action to foreclose a mortgage.”); § 687.03, Fla. Stat. (noting “if any loan, . . . or obligation exceeds $500,000 in amount or value, it shall not be usury or unlawful to reserve, charge, or take interest thereon unless the rate of interest exceeds” twenty-five percent); Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”).

2