Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon - Appellate Court Opinion
Summary
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decision in Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon, citing concerns with the appellant's brief. The court noted the appellant cited non-existent cases and cases that did not support her arguments, warning of potential sanctions for using AI without verification.
What changed
The Florida District Court of Appeal, in the case of Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court specifically addressed concerns regarding the appellant's brief, noting that it cited thirteen non-existent cases and nine existing cases that did not support the arguments presented. The court emphasized that parties, including those proceeding pro se, are responsible for the accuracy of their submissions and warned that the use of artificial intelligence for brief preparation requires careful verification to avoid sanctions.
This opinion serves as a significant warning to legal professionals and pro se litigants regarding the responsible use of legal research tools, particularly AI. The court highlighted the potential for sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for submitting inaccurate or fabricated legal authority. Compliance officers should ensure that all legal filings are thoroughly reviewed for accuracy, especially when AI tools are utilized in their preparation, to avoid procedural errors and potential disciplinary action.
What to do next
- Review internal policies on legal brief preparation, especially concerning AI usage.
- Ensure all legal citations are verified for accuracy and relevance before submission.
- Reinforce training on legal research ethics and the consequences of submitting inaccurate information to courts.
Penalties
Potential sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with rules regarding brief content.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 4D2025-1309
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Combined Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
SAMANTHA ROUSSELL,
Appellant,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ETC., et al.,
Appellees.
No. 4D2025-1309
[March 11, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Gary Michael Farmer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No.
CACE17006417.
Samantha Roussell, Miramar, pro se.
Alec P. Hayes of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Atlanta, GA, for appellee
The Bank of New York Mellon.
No appearance for appellee Sunset Lakes Master Assn., Inc.
PER CURIAM.
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we
affirm on the merits without discussion. We write, however, to address
our concerns with the purported legal authority upon which the appellant
relied in her brief. The appellant cited thirteen different cases that do not
exist. We expressly disregard these hallucinated cases. Furthermore, the
appellant cited nine different cases that do exist, but do not stand for the
proposition described by the appellant. A party, whether represented by
counsel or proceeding pro se, is responsible for the content of any
submission to the court. If a party chooses to use artificial intelligence to
assist in the preparation of a brief, it must do so with care and take steps
to ensure the accuracy of any submissions to the court. “While we decline
to do so here, this court has the authority to sanction appellant under
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c).” Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d
51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citing Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 656
(Fla. 4th DCA 2025)).
Affirmed.
LEVINE, CONNER and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.