DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PLAZA LA MER, INC. and SOUTH SQUARE DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

DELRAY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., SOSQ PROPERTY 

INVESTMENTS, INC., HATIM HASHWANI, HARRY HAHAMOVITCH, 

ROBERT GEISERMAN, HHH DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., and

HHH FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC.,

Appellees.

Nos. 4D16-2462, 4D18-1068, and 4D18-1099

[May 8, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 501995CA006336

AO.

Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach, and 

Robert A. Sweetapple of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., Boca Raton, 

for appellants.

Stephen A. Mendelsohn of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Boca Raton, and 

Elliot H. Scherker and Brigid F. Cech Samole of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 

Miami, for appellees Delray Property Investments, Inc., and SOSQ Property 

Investments, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

In 2015, we described this case as the “oldest active case in Palm Beach 

County.” Hahamovitch v. Delray Prop. Invs., Inc., 165 So. 3d 676, 678 n.1 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2015). The case returns but limited to the circuit court’s 

final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the appellees. We 

affirm.

After we affirmed the court’s final judgment, the case returned to the 

circuit court and both appellants and appellees sought attorney’s fees and 

costs. The court held a hearing and entered an Order on Joint Motions on 

the Parties’ Post-Trial Motions for Attorney’s Fees. The court determined 

(i) the appellees were the prevailing parties on certain issues; and (ii) the 
2

appellants did not prevail on any claim that included an entitlement to 

attorney’s fees. 

The appellants appealed. After oral argument, we concluded the court’s 

order was final for the appellants but non-final for the appellees. As a 

result, we relinquished jurisdiction to the circuit court to determine the 

amount of fees due to the appellees for those claims on which the court 

had determined them to be the prevailing party. 

The circuit court held several hearings after we relinquished 

jurisdiction. At the start of one of those hearings, counsel for the 

appellants stipulated that the appellants were not challenging the time 

entries, the hourly rate, or number of hours billed by counsel for the 

appellees. And the appellees agreed that they were not seeking any fees 

incurred before February 2008. Finally, the parties also stipulated that 

the appellants were not contesting the amount of costs due to the 

appellees. The appellants’ cost challenge was limited to the “allocation” of 

those costs. 

Ultimately, the court issued a final judgment awarding the appellees 

$1,203,852.47 in attorney’s fees and costs. Of that amount, the appellees 

were awarded $969,571.88 from Plaza La Mer and South Square 

Development, Inc. The remaining $234,280.59 was due solely from Plaza 

La Mer.

We review the circuit court’s allocation of attorney’s fees for an abuse 

of discretion. Glantz & Glantz, P.A. v. Chinchilla, 17 So. 3d 711, 713 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2009) (citations omitted).

The appellants challenge the court’s allocation of fees and costs and 

argue that the “entire litigation was actually two similar but mis-joined 

cases.” The appellees disagree and argue that the “appellants have 

asserted throughout this litigation that their accounting/declaratory 

judgment claims were integrated and could not be placed into separate 

categories.” On the facts here, we conclude the court did not abuse its 

discretion when it awarded the appellees $969,571.88 in fees and costs 

from Plaza La Mer and South Square Development, Inc., and $234,280.59 

solely from Plaza La Mer. 

Here, the appellants jointly prosecuted claims against the appellees. 

They shared counsel and legal arguments. Since this case was filed in 

1995, the case has proceeded jointly. The case effectively proceeded as 

one plaintiff against one defendant. The appellants themselves jointly 

sought an award of attorney’s fees, and the appellants sought to recover 
3

the fees and costs “incurred in the defense and prosecution of this action.” 

The appellants jointly requested an evidentiary hearing to prove the time 

their attorney expended and to establish their costs.

From the start, the appellants presented singular arguments and 

shared a legal strategy, witnesses, lawyers, motions, and briefs. This case 

did not involve distinct parties presenting separate and distinct claims for 

damages. This involved two parties acting as one, making it nearly 

impossible to apportion fees absent arbitrarily assigning each half the 

burden. See Franzen v. Lacuna Golf Ltd. P’ship, 717 So. 2d 1090, 1093 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[T]he trial court is not required to apportion 

attorney’s fees where work for one claim cannot be distinguished from 

work on other claims.”).

The circuit court’s final judgment is affirmed in all respects.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.