Full Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JUGAL K. TANEJA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D20-679 ) FIRST STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE, ) LLC; DOWNTOWN ST. PETE ) PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited ) liability company; BROADWAY BANK, ) an Illinois banking company; FUEL ) INVESTMENT& DEVELOPMENT II, ) LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ) PARAGON MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, ) LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ) ABED INC., a Florida corporation; ) INDIRA LALWANI, individually; FUEL ) GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability ) company; SMITH SANTIESTEBAN ) ALLEN ARCHITECHTS, INC., a Florida ) corporation; and CHANDRESH ) SARAIYA, individually; ) ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed January 29, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge. Matthew J. Conigliaro, of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. John A. Anthony, Andrew J. Ghekas, and Nicholas Lafalce, of Anthony & Partners, LLC, Tampa, for Appellee, First Street and Fifth Avenue, LLC. No appearance for remaining Appellees. 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 He was not a party to the note or mortgage in his individual capacity. In 2009, FSFA's predecessor in interest filed this action seeking to foreclose on the mortgage because the loan had gone into default. 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 On appeal, Taneja argues that despite his status as a defendant in the foreclosure action, the deficiency judgment must be reversed because the complaint 1This is the latest in a series of legal proceedings related to a failed commercial development project in downtown St. Petersburg. 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). -2- 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 -3- 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. -4-