Case Name: Oneila BOSCH and Jose Bosch, Appellants, v. Daniel G. HAJJAR, D.D.S., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-07-20
Citations: 639 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: Nos. 92-3575, 93-1171
Parties: Oneila BOSCH and Jose Bosch, Appellants, v. Daniel G. HAJJAR, D.D.S., Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 639
Pages: 1096–1098

Head Matter:
Oneila BOSCH and Jose Bosch, Appellants, v. Daniel G. HAJJAR, D.D.S., Appellee.
Nos. 92-3575, 93-1171.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 20, 1994.
Frederick C. Mor ello of Frederick C. Mor-ello, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tu-tan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's denial of appellants' motion for new trial, but reverse the award of attorney's fee to appellee.
While we have considered and rejected both of appellants' arguments directed to the motion for new trial, we feel it appropriate to address here only the issue upon which appellants focused at oral argument. We agree with appellants that counsel's isolated comments at closing argument, to which no objection was made, were improper. Nevertheless, the comments, under the facts of this case, did not constitute fundamental error. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dauksis, 596 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), quashed on other grounds, 623 So.2d 455 (Fla.1993).
As for the attorney's fee, when the applicable rule and statute governing offers of judgment are involved, the motion for an attorney's fee must be made within a thirty day period. At the relevant time in this case, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(h)(1) (1991) read:
Upon motion made within 30 days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action, the court may impose sanctions equal to reasonable attorneys fees and all reasonable costs of the litigation accruing from the date the relevant offer of judgment was made_(footnote omitted).
Similarly, section 768.79(6), Florida Statutes (1991), read: "Upon motion made by the offeror within 30 days after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal...."
Here, the motion was filed five months after the verdict and final judgment. It was untimely, and therefore should have been denied.
GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
ALVAREZ, RONALD V., Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.
. The corresponding Federal Rule for offers of judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, does not refer to a time limitation on making a motion for fees pursuant to the rule. In White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), the Supreme Court of the United States said: "[T]he district courts remain free to adopt local rules establishing timeliness standards for the filing of claims for attorney's fees." White, 455 U.S. at 454, 102 S.Ct. at 1168. The Court cited two cases in support of this point. Obin v. District No. 9, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th Cir.1981) (recommending a twenty-one day time limitation for the filing of a claim for attorneys fees); and Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1980) (requests for attorney's fees "can be handled best by local rule"). White, 455 U.S. at 454, n. 16, 102 S.Ct. at 1168, n. 16.