Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FIRST CARE THERAPY, LLC and LOODJHINSSY LAFAILLE-PAUL, Appellants, v. CONGRESS AVE BOYNTON, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D2025-2466 [November 12, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gregory Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502025CA001625XXXAMB. Dexter F. George of Law Office of Dexter F. George, Plantation, and Robert Wellington Guerrier of Law Offices of Robert Guerrier, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants. Daniel E. Nordby, Alyssa L. Cory, and Kassandra S. Reardon of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, and Brett R. Renton and Samendio L. Mathieu of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Orlando, for appellee. FORST, J. In this breach of a commercial lease and guaranty case, Appellants First Care Therapy, LLC (“Tenant”) and Loodjhinssy Lafaille-Paul (“Guarantor”) appeal from the final default summary judgment entered against them and in favor of Appellee Congress Ave Boynton, LLC (“Landlord”). Appellants contend that the judgment is void because: 1) Landlord lacked standing and failed to state a cause of action; 2) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and 3) Appellants were denied due process—both as to the corporate Tenant’s appearance without counsel and as to the award of unliquidated damages without a properly noticed trial. We affirm the judgment with minimal discussion insofar as it adjudicates Landlord’s standing, the trial court’s jurisdiction, and Appellants’ liability. But because the trial court awarded unliquidated damages against defaulted defendants without the properly noticed damages trial which our precedent requires, we reverse the damages award and remand for a properly noticed trial. Background In September 2021, Tenant leased commercial premises in Boynton Beach from SNH Medical Office Properties Trust (“Former Landlord”). Guarantor executed a guaranty of Tenant’s obligations under the lease. In May 2024, Landlord purchased the property and Former Landlord assigned the lease and guaranty to Landlord. On February 21, 2025, Landlord sued Tenant and Guarantor for breach of the lease and guaranty, claiming nonpayment of commercial rent. The complaint did not allege a sum certain. Landlord instead sought “base rent, additional rent, operating expenses/common area maintenance, late fees, real estate taxes, and sales taxes that was due,” together with “the additional amounts that will [not] come due until the Premises is relet,” plus fees and costs. Landlord attached to the complaint: the original lease and guaranty agreements; a “notice of monetary default”; a “lease ledger” itemizing various unpaid charges totaling $34,337.91; an agreement by which Tenant would return the premises to Landlord, which would “attempt to relet the premises”; and the guaranty, wherein Guarantor agreed to be held liable for any of Tenant’s unpaid lease obligations. Landlord did not attach the paperwork concerning the lease assignment from Former Landlord to Landlord. Tenant and Guarantor were served with the complaint but did not respond, and the clerk entered a default against Tenant and Guarantor in March 2025. Landlord then moved for final summary judgment, asserting that an attached “Affidavit of Indebtedness . . . liquidates the amount of damages sought by the Complaint, which totals $85,782.80, through the date of reletting plus the costs of reletting.” The affidavit, executed by Landlord’s managing agent, attributed that sum to four components: $48,480 in rent, $4,222 in “legal fees to draft and negotiate new lease,” $10,557 in “commission paid to relet,” and $22,523 in “tenant improvement in relet.” The motion also claimed entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court held a summary judgment hearing in July 2025. The resulting final judgment reflects that, at the hearing, Guarantor appeared pro se, and no attorney appeared for Tenant. Appellants did not provide a transcript of that hearing and we can only speculate as to whether Landlord and/or Guarantor presented witnesses or introduced evidence. 2 The final judgment merely states that the court “heard argument.” The trial court entered final judgment for Landlord in the amount of $85,782.80 (the exact amount requested by Landlord), plus interest, and found Landlord entitled to attorney’s fees. Tenant’s and Guarantor’s appeal follows. Analysis “Whether a judgment is void is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Vercosa v. Fields, 174 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Standing, Jurisdiction, and Liability We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ principal arguments—that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, Landlord lacked standing, and the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Section 26.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2024), vests the circuit courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions at law not cognizable by the county courts, which includes this breach-of-contract action. Appellants conflate subject matter jurisdiction with case jurisdiction. The former concerns the court’s authority over a class of cases. The latter concerns the court’s authority to act in a particular case, and a challenge to case jurisdiction is waived if not timely raised. JJJTB, Inc. v. Schmidt, 415 So. 3d 129, 132–33 (Fla. 2025). Here, the circuit court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction, and Appellants waived any case jurisdiction objection. The absence of the written assignment from Former Landlord to Landlord did not defeat Landlord’s standing or render the complaint legally insufficient. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130(a) requires only that the “contracts, accounts, or documents on which action may be brought or defense made . . . must be incorporated in or attached to the pleading.” Landlord sued on the lease and guaranty and attached both. Rule 1.130 did not require Landlord to also attach the assignment. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a). Moreover, by defaulting, Appellants admitted the complaint’s well-pled factual allegations, including the allegation that Former Landlord had assigned the lease and guaranty to Landlord. See Donohue v. Brightman, 939 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“A default terminates the defending party’s right to further defend, except to contest the amount of unliquidated damages.”) (citing Kaplan v. Morse, 870 So. 2d 934, 936 (Fla. 3 5th DCA 2004)); Fla. Bar v. Porter, 684 So. 2d 810, 813 n.4 (Fla. 1996) (“[T]he entry of default precludes a party from contesting the existence of the plaintiff’s claim and liability thereon. Thereafter, a party has the right to contest damages caused by the party’s wrong but no other issue.” (citations omitted)). That implicit admission established Landlord’s status as assignee—and thus Landlord’s standing—as a matter of law. The rule that a failure to state a cause of action is not cured by a default does not help Appellants, because the complaint stated causes of action for breach of the lease and the guaranty. Finally, Tenant argues it was denied due process when it “could not have had an opportunity to be heard” at the summary judgment hearing. Yet, Appellants’ brief acknowledges “[i]t is well recognized that a company, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself and cannot appear in a court of law without an attorney as occurred in this case and reflected in the Final Judgment.” See Lamaze v. Guthrie, 411 So. 3d 16, 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). We agree with Landlord that “Tenant’s failure to appear by counsel does not create a due process violation if [Tenant] does not elect to appear by counsel.” We therefore affirm the final judgment insofar as it determines that Landlord had standing, the trial court had jurisdiction, and Appellants are liable for breach of the lease and the guaranty. The Trial Court Awarded Unliquidated Damages Without a Properly Noticed Trial Recently, in Affinity Health Partners, LLC v. Hayes Locums, LLC, 2026 WL 2415958, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1697 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 19, 2026), relying upon well-established precedent, we held that a trial court errs by entering a final default judgment for unliquidated damages without a properly noticed damages trial. Id. at *3. We reversed and remanded for such a trial on facts materially indistinguishable from those in the present case. Id. Thus, the same result follows here. Whether damages are liquidated or unliquidated is a question of law we review de novo. Talbot v. Rosenbaum, 142 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A clerk’s default entitles a plaintiff to liquidated damages, but not to unliquidated damages—damages are liquidated only where “the proper amount to be awarded can be determined with exactness from the cause of action as pleaded,” and are unliquidated where the court must consider testimony or other evidence to ascertain the facts on which to base a value 4 judgment. City of Fellsmere v. Almanza, 380 So. 3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (quoting Bodygear Activewear, Inc. v. Counter Intel. Servs., 946 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). A complaint’s demand for a fixed sum does not itself liquidate damages. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Controltec, Inc., 561 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Similarly, an affidavit of proof does not operate to liquidate them. MacDonnell v. U.S. Bank N.A. as Tr. for Truman 2013 SC4 Title Tr., 293 So. 3d 585, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Here, the damages were unliquidated. The complaint pleaded no sum certain. The ledger attached to the complaint totaled $34,337.91, less than half of the $85,782.80 which the court ultimately awarded. The trial court could arrive at the judgment figure only by consulting Landlord’s “Affidavit of Indebtedness,” which calculated the award from rent, reletting commissions, tenant improvement costs, and the legal fees of negotiating a new lease. Because the amount owed could not be determined with exactness from the pleadings and required the court to weigh evidence, the damages were unliquidated. See Affinity Health Partners, 2026 WL 2415958 at *3; City of Fellsmere, 380 So. 3d at 1202; Talbot, 142 So. 3d at 967. The prejudgment interest that derives from that principal is likewise unliquidated, as are the costs. Affinity Health Partners, 2026 WL 2415958 at *3; MacDonnell, 293 So. 3d at 590. Our precedents require an evidentiary hearing or damages trial, noticed in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(d), before the trial court could award unliquidated damages against a defaulted defendant. Affinity Health Partners, 2026 WL 2415958 at *3; Bodygear Activewear, 946 So. 2d at 1151 (“For lost profits or sums expended to perform a contract, testimony or other evidence is necessary ‘to ascertain facts upon which to base a value judgment’ and set a damage figure. Therefore, even though it was in default, Bodygear was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of damages noticed in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440.” (quoting Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Tr. Co., 670 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (footnote omitted))). Here, the July 2025 proceeding was a non-evidentiary summary judgment hearing, not a damages trial noticed under Rule 1.440. The final judgment reflects that the court received argument rather than evidence, and awarded the precise sum which Landlord’s motion had requested. Summary judgment proceedings are not a substitute for the noticed damages trial which our cases require. The award of unliquidated 5 damages without a noticed hearing was therefore error. 1 See Affinity Health Partners, 2026 WL 2415958 at *3. Further, Appellants’ failure to furnish a transcript of the July 2025 hearing does not compel affirmance without a remand on the damages issue. The hearing was non-evidentiary, and the error which we have identified—the award of unliquidated damages through summary judgment rather than a noticed damages trial—appears on the face of the final judgment and the record. Thus, this is not a case in which the missing transcript prevents meaningful review. Conclusion We affirm the final judgment to the extent it adjudicates Landlord’s standing, the trial court’s jurisdiction, and Appellants’ liability for breach of the lease and the guaranty. However, the trial court erred by awarding unliquidated damages in the final default summary judgment without a properly noticed damages trial, because the amount awarded could not be determined with exactness from the pleadings. We therefore reverse the damages award, and remand for a properly noticed damages trial to determine the unliquidated damages. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. SHEPHERD and SHAW, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing. 1 We recognize, as we did in Affinity Health Partners, that the District Courts of Appeal are divided on whether Rule 1.440 always requires such a trial, or whether unliquidated damages may be fixed against a defaulted defendant through ordinary summary judgment procedure after proper notice. Id. at *2 n.3 (citing cases). The Fifth District has held that a summary judgment awarding unliquidated damages against a defaulted defendant, entered after proper notice and on timely-filed summary judgment evidence, is voidable but not void. Specialty Sols., Inc. v. Baxter Gypsum & Concrete, LLC, 325 So. 3d 192, 196–200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). Here, Appellee does not ask us to recede from our precedent. In fact, Appellee’s answer brief does not address our precedent on this issue. Accordingly, we adhere to our precedent in this case. 6