order on both trial and appellate fees, the court’s rulings on the separate fee motions were clearly distinct and independent, contained within separate paragraphs of the order. D’Alusio should have sought review of that portion of the order addressing appellate fees by motion in this case number rather than through a separate, unrelated appeal. See Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (observing that “the correct method of seeking review of an order on appellate costs or attorney’s fees is to file a motion for review in the appellate court in the proceeding that was the subject of the award, within 30 days of rendition of the order in the lower tribunal”); Magner v. Merrill Lynch Realty/MCK, Inc., 585 So.2d 1040, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that there exists a limited
holding that the failure to file a motion for review of appellate attorneys fees under rule 9400c within thirty days of rendition waived the issue for appeal holding that the laterserved defendants  had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal holding that the requirement to serve a motion for attorney fees or costs within thirty days after filing of judgment applies even where the final judgment reserves jurisdiction to award same