JUGAL K. TANEJA

v.

DOWNTOWN ST. PETE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL

STARGEL, Judge. Jugal K. Taneja challenges a deficiency judgment entered in favor of First Street and Fifth Avenue, LLC, (FSFA) in this mortgage foreclosure action. Despite the complex history of this case, the important facts for the purposes of this appeal are relatively straightforward. Taneja was one of several guarantors on a $4,800,000 loan taken out by Fuel Investment & Development II, LLC, to fund the purchase of a parcel of commercial real estate.¹ After years of litigation, FSFA successfully foreclosed on the property and thereafter obtained a $9,815,992.13 judgment against Taneja for a deficiency amount and for trial court attorney's fees based on the guaranty.² See, e.g., Taneja v. Saraiya, 290 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); MB Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Paragon Mortg. Holdings, LLC, 89 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Abed, Inc. v. Saraiya, 85 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). 2We affirmed the trial court's entry of final summary judgment of foreclosure. See Taneja v.

First St. & Fifth Ave., LLC, 268 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (table decision).

- 3 - failed to assert a claim against him on the guaranty.

We agree. "A trial court is without jurisdiction to award relief that was not requested in the pleadings or tried by consent." Wachovia Mortg. Corp. v. Posti, 166 So. 3d 944, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC, 986 So. 2d 1244, 1252 (Fla. 2008) ("'Florida law clearly holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and to determine matters which are not the subject of proper pleading and notice,' and '[t]o allow a court to rule on a matter without proper pleadings and notice is violative of a party's due process rights.' " (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Carroll & Assocs., P.A. v. Galindo, 864 So. 2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003))); Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Tr. for Certificateholders of Banc of Am. Mortg. Sec., Inc., 264 So. 3d 1152, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[P]leadings function as a safeguard of due process by ensuring that the parties will have prior, meaningful notice of the claims, defenses, rights, and obligations that will be at issue when they come before a court.").

Upon review of the complaint and the record on appeal, it is apparent that Taneja was only named as a defendant in the foreclosure action because of his status as a lienholder on the real property FSFA sought to foreclose. Importantly, count two, which was the sole claim premised on the guaranty, only sought relief from two other guarantors; it did not seek to recover from Taneja.

Thus, no claim for monetary relief was ever pleaded against Taneja on the guaranty. Cf. Zoo-Land, LLC v. Premier Am. Bank, N.A., 257 So. 3d 545, 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (affirming entry of deficiency judgment against guarantors where "[t]he foreclosure complaint included a claim for a deficiency and it asserted claims against the guarantors on the guarantees" (emphasis added)). Because the complaint did not seek to recover in personam against Taneja

- 4 - under the guaranty, the award of a deficiency amount and trial court attorney's fees in favor of FSFA and against Taneja was erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the deficiency judgment and remand this case for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.