1213 (Fla.1990) (“ ‘[0]nce damages are liquidated, prejudgment interest is considered an element of those damages as a matter of law, and the plaintiff is to be made whole from the date of the loss.’ ’’)(quoting Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46, 47 (Fla.1988)). The trial court should not view Section XXI of the lease as operating to limit the Department’s liability to an amount equal to six months’ rent. The Department did not assert Section XXI as a defense and, thus, its applicability was never argued below. While Section XXI of the lease may have been applicable under the facts of this case, it was not for the trial court to invoke a defense the Department failed to raise. See Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Blocker, 728 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). Also, we direct the trial court to carefully
holding that it is error to grant relief that was not requested noticed nor litigated by any party holding because the district court refused to grant plaintiff reinstatement or any other injunctive relief the damage award was neither incidental to nor intertwined with any other relief holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that where the final judgment provided relief that was not requested  its entry constituted reversible error holding that it is not