Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · Fla. 4th DCA · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant cited 13 nonexistent cases and 9 cases that do not support the cited propositions; court used the word 'hallucinated' to describe the nonexistent citations.
Consequence
Nonexistent 'hallucinated cases' expressly disregarded; 9 misapplied real cases also noted; no sanctions imposed; Rule 9.410(a) warning issued.
Lesson
Courts are now using 'hallucinated' as a legal term of art for nonexistent AI-generated citations; the 13+9 split illustrates two distinct citation defect categories courts are tracking.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Roussell v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 4D2025-1309, 2026 WL 681054 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 11, 2026) (per curiam)
- Decided
- March 11, 2026
Summary
Pro se appellant Samantha Roussell appealed a foreclosure judgment in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County (L.T. Case No. CACE17006417, Judge Gary Michael Farmer, Jr.). The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (per curiam, Levine, Conner, and Shaw, JJ.) affirmed on the merits and wrote separately to address "concerns with the purported legal authority" in Roussell's brief. The court found that Roussell cited thirteen cases that do not exist and nine existing cases that do not support the propositions she cited them for. The court expressly disregarded the nonexistent cases, characterizing them as "hallucinated cases," and addressed AI use directly: "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."
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (court characterized nonexistent citations as 'hallucinated cases'; explicitly addressed AI use in briefing)
What sanction did the court impose?
Affirmed on the merits. The court expressly disregarded the 13 nonexistent "hallucinated cases" and noted that 9 additional cited cases did not support the cited propositions. No sanctions imposed but an explicit warning issued that the court has authority to sanction under Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a). The opinion quotes Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), and cites Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Why does Samantha Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon matter for law firms using AI?
Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon is notable for two features that distinguish it from the prior Florida Fourth District AI-citation warnings. First, the court used the word “hallucinated” to describe the nonexistent cases, making Roussell one of the earliest Florida appellate opinions to adopt that term as a legal descriptor rather than a colloquialism. Second, the opinion distinguishes two categories of defective citations: cases that do not exist at all (13 citations) and cases that exist but do not support the proposition for which they are cited (9 citations). That distinction tracks the two separate ways AI tools fail in legal research.
The 13 nonexistent + 9 misapplied structure is also the most granular citation-defect breakdown in the 2025-2026 Florida corpus. For practitioners building a sanctions record in state appellate proceedings, Roussell provides the clearest benchmark: 22 citation defects total, zero acknowledgment of error from the filer, and a court that “expressly disregard[ed]” the phantom authority on the record. The opinion’s restraint on sanctions, despite that record, reflects the Fourth District’s consistent posture of one warning before monetary enforcement, a posture set in Goya v. Hayashida and extended through Friend and Roussell.
The foreclosure context (CACE17006417, filed 2017) also matters for managing partners advising clients on legacy pro se foreclosure defense. Cases filed during the 2017-2020 foreclosure wave are still generating appellate briefing in 2025-2026, and that long-tail litigation is now producing some of the worst AI-citation incidents because the pro se litigants have no counsel to catch the errors before filing.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- The 13 nonexistent cases + 9 wrong-proposition cases is the most granular citation-defect breakdown in the 2025-2026 Florida corpus. Defense counsel should cite Roussell when quantifying the scale of AI-citation errors for a sanctions motion; 22 citation defects in a single brief is a strong predicate for finding the filer failed to exercise reasonable inquiry.
- The court's use of 'hallucinated' in a published opinion normalizes the term as a legal descriptor for AI-fabricated citations. Firms documenting AI-citation incidents for compliance purposes should adopt the 'hallucinated citation' terminology that courts are using.
- Roussell is the latest in a cluster: Goya (2025) imposed sanctions, Friend (Dec. 2025) warned, Roussell (Mar. 2026) warned with a larger defect count. The escalating scale of citation errors across the cluster suggests courts may move from warning to monetary sanction on the next significant offense in the Fourth District.