Francois v. Financial, No. 4D2025-2088 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Davos Francois v. Vive Financial
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Florida (FL)
Court
Florida Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Gross (J.)
Opinion
Per curiam
DAVOS FRANCOIS, Appellant, v. VIVE FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee., --- So.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 758289Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASEDFOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENTLAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT ISSUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.DAVOS FRANCOIS, Appellant,v.VIVE FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee.No. 4D2025-2088|[March 18, 2026]Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth JudicialCircuit, Broward County; Michele McCaul Ricca, Judge; L.T.Case No. COCE22-048202.Attorneys and Law FirmsDavos Francois, Miramar, pro se.Landon Morley of Lotane & Associates, P.A., Cocoa, forappellee.OpinionCiklin, J.*1 Appellant, acting pro se, seeks review of an order denyinghis motion to vacate a default final judgment under FloridaRule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Lack of standing cannot beraised for the first time in a rule 1.540 motion. Phadael v.Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA2012). Additionally, “[e]ven where a judgment is entered infavor of a plaintiff that lacks standing, the judgment is merelyvoidable, not void.” Id. Accordingly, we affirm.We write separately to address a troubling issue in appellant'sbriefing. Multiple authorities cited by appellant in his filings,in both the trial court and this court, do not exist. Courtsdepend upon the accuracy and candor of citations presentedby litigants. The submission of fictitious or fabricated caselaw—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding,or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—issanctionable. See Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 656(Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Russell v. Mells, 50 Fla. L. WeeklyD2609 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025) (referring counsel to theFlorida Bar for filing imaginary legal authorities in a brief);Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA2024) (sanctioning a pro se litigant for submitting fictitiouscase law to the court).Attorneys and pro se litigants “are responsible for the contentof their submissions to the court. Those who use artificialintelligence to assist in these submissions must ensure theiraccuracy.” Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA2025) (cautioning the pro se litigant about sanctions for citing“phantom authority”).Appellant is cautioned that future filings containingnonexistent authorities may result in sanctions. Fla. R. App.P. 9.410(a).Artificial intelligence may assist in research and drafting, butit cannot replace the lawyer's or litigant's duty to ensure thatevery authority cited is real, accurate, and applicable. Theresponsibility for what is filed rests with the human author,not the machine.Affirmed.Kuntz, C.J., and Gross, J., concur.All Citations--- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 758289End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access