Hessert v. Hessert, No. 6D2026-0121 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Hessert v. Hessert & Wieland-Pulayya
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Florida (FL)
Court
Florida Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Certiorari Denied
Panel
Brownlee (J.)
Opinion
Per curiam
Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Petitioner, v. Gary Bell..., --- So.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 785016Only 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, Sixth District.Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Petitioner,v.Gary Bell Hessert and MeganWieland-Pulayya, Respondents.Case No. 6D2026-0121|March 20, 2026Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for OrangeCounty. Alicia Peyton Robinson, Judge.Attorneys and Law FirmsMelissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Clermont, pro se.Michelle Stile, of Stile Law, PLLC, Orlando, for Respondent,Gary Bell Hessert.Megan Wieland-Pulayya, Orlando, pro se.OpinionPratt, J.*1 The petition for writ of certiorari, docketed January 15,2026, is denied without further discussion.We write to address the petition's concerning citation tonon-existent cases, as well as the petition's concerningcitation to actual cases which do not stand for the legalpropositions asserted in the petition. From all appearances,the petition bears the hallmarks of having been produced byPetitioner—a pro se filer—with the assistance of generativeartificial intelligence (“AI”)1 but without Petitioner havingput sufficient guardrails into place to ensure the accuracy ofthe cases cited in her petition or the accuracy of the legalpropositions for which the cases are cited in her petition.Here, the petition filed by Petitioner cites to thirteen cases.Only four of the cited cases both exist and are cited for legalpropositions that the cited cases actually represent. Five ofthe cited cases do not exist. Four of the cited cases are citedfor legal propositions that the cited cases do not actuallyrepresent.Courts across the United States, including Florida's appellatecourts, are currently grappling with an influx of court filingsproduced by pro se litigants and attorneys alike with theassistance of AI that cite non-existent cases or that cite actualcases for inaccurate legal propositions. See, e.g., Russell v.Mells, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2609, 2025 WL 3533637 (Fla. 2dDCA Dec. 10, 2025) (case involving an attorney's improperuse of AI); Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir.,Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel, No. 2D2024-1772, 2025 WL2486314 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 29, 2025) (case involving anattorney's improper use of AI); Takefman v. Pickleball Club,LLC, 418 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (case involvinga pro se litigant's improper use of AI); Goya v. Hayashida,418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (case involving a prose litigant's improper use of AI); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (case involving a pro selitigant's improper use of AI). Although AI is a relativelynew technology, and although AI may have appropriateuses in the legal field, there is simply no excuse for prose litigants or attorneys to file briefs, motions, and otherfilings in Florida's appellate courts that cite to cases withoutfirst performing the necessary and simple steps of (1) cite-checking the cases to ensure they actually exist and (2) cite-checking the cases to ensure they actually represent the legalpropositions asserted. See, e.g., Russell, 2025 WL 3533637,at *6 (“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of[pro se litigants and] attorneys to read the legal authoritiesthey cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings todetermine that the authorities stand for the propositions forwhich they are cited.” (citation omitted)); Goya, 418 So. 3d at655 (“An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversaryby relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversarysystem.” (citation omitted)). This is true regardless of whethersuch filings are prepared with or without the assistance of AI.*2 Florida's appellate courts, like other courts, require prose litigants and attorneys to sign their filings and therebyrepresent the accuracy thereof. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P.9.045(d) (“All documents filed with the court must be signedas required by Florida Rule of General Practice and JudicialAdministration 2.515.”); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.
Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Petitioner, v. Gary Bell..., --- So.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.22.515(d)(2) (“On filing, each signer represents that: (A)the signer has read the document; (B) to the best of thesigner's knowledge, information, and belief, there are goodgrounds to support the document; and (C) the documentis not interposed for delay.”). Members of the Florida Bar—who are officers of the court—must also comply withtheir ethical duties when they sign and make filings inFlorida's appellate courts. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Brown, 905So. 2d 76, 82 (Fla. 2005) (“[T]he unique role of attorneysas officers of the court mandates that attorneys be held tothe highest of ethical standards.” (quoting DeBock v. State,512 So. 2d 164, 168 (Fla. 1987))); Boca Burger, Inc. v.Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571 (Fla. 2005) (“[Appellate courts]depend on counsel to accurately state both the facts andthe applicable law. Therefore, regardless of trial counsel'sconduct or representations, appellate counsel (who oftenis separate from trial counsel) has an independent ethicalobligation to present both the facts and the applicable lawaccurately and forthrightly.”); Russell, 2025 WL 3533637, at*6 (“As judges, we rely on attorneys to ethically representtheir clients. We expect that representation to be zealous,honest, and competent. Indeed, lawyers owe the courts andtheir clients a duty to practice with competence and candor....By signing an appellate brief, a lawyer certifies that he or shehas read the document and that to the best of the lawyer'sknowledge, information, and belief there are ‘good groundsto support the document.’ ” (first citing R. Regulating Fla.Bar 4-1.1; then citing R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(1); andthen quoting Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d))); R.Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with reasonablediligence ... in representing a client.”); see also Black's LawDictionary 573 (12th ed. 2024) (providing several definitionsof “diligence,” including “[t]he attention and care requiredfrom a person in a given situation; care; heedfulness”); TheAmerican Heritage Dictionary 507 (5th ed. 2011) (similar).Florida's appellate courts have the authority and the dutyto maintain the integrity of the proceedings before them,including where appropriate sanctioning pro se litigants andattorneys who fail to follow the Florida Rules of AppellateProcedure and court orders. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a)(“After 10 days’ notice, on its own motion, the court mayimpose sanctions for any violation of these rules, or for thefiling of any proceeding, motion, brief, or other documentthat is frivolous or in bad faith. Such sanctions may includereprimand, contempt, striking of briefs or pleadings, dismissalof proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”);Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)(“We conclude that sanctions are appropriate in accordancewith Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and thiscourt's authority to control its docket.” (citations omitted)).Florida's appellate courts also have the authority and the dutyto safeguard the integrity of the legal profession, includingwhere appropriate referring an attorney to the Florida Barfor potential disciplinary action. See, e.g., Fla. Code Jud.Conduct, Canon 3D.(2) (“A judge who receives informationor has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists thata lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules RegulatingThe Florida Bar shall take appropriate action.”); Russell, 2025WL 3533637, at *6 (“When a lawyer cites imaginary legalauthorities to our court as if they were law, we are compelledto refer that lawyer to the Bar because of the professional rulesof conduct.”); see generally R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.18(rule governing the disposition of inquiries or complaintsreferred to the Bar by members of the judiciary).All filers in cases before the Sixth District Court of Appealshould take notice: our Court will remain vigilant to ensurethat filings signed by pro se litigants and attorneys alike—including filings prepared with or without the assistance ofAI— both: (1) do not cite to non-existent cases and (2) donot cite to cases for inaccurate legal propositions. If and whenany such erroneous filings are made in a given case beforeour Court, filers on the opposite side of the case should pointout such errors to our Court either in their responsive filingsor via motion. To avoid the potentiality of the issuance oforders to show cause, pro se litigants and attorneys shouldremember their obligation to cite-check all cases cited intheir filings in Florida's appellate courts prior to makingtheir filings—regardless of whether their filings are preparedwith or without the assistance of AI. Pro se litigants andattorneys should also remember that they cannot satisfy theiraforementioned obligation by relying upon AI to cite-checkthe cases cited in their filings. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P.9.045(d); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2); seegenerally Russell, 2025 WL 3533637, at *4 n.3.*3 In the petition at issue in this case, Petitioner has providedcitations to a number of cases, some of which exist andsome of which do not. Petitioner is directed to provide copiesof each and every case cited in the petition that actuallyexists with highlighted quotations or language that supportthe assertions made in the petition. These cases shall be filedin a supplemental appendix, indexed for each case, with thisCourt within ten days of the issuance of this opinion.In light of the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to show causewithin ten days of the issuance of this opinion why she
Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Petitioner, v. Gary Bell..., --- So.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3should not be sanctioned for filing a petition that containsnon-existent cases and that cites to cases for inaccurate legalpropositions. Potential sanctions include the imposition of arequirement that a member of the Florida Bar in good standingreview and sign any future filings in this Court on behalfof Petitioner in any matter in which she seeks review of theunderlying action (Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544).PETITION DENIED. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED.WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.All Citations--- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 785016Footnotes1“Generative AI[—i.e., generative artificial intelligence—]are deep-learning models that compile data to generatestatistically probable outputs when prompted.... Generative AI can create original images, analyze documents, and draftbriefs based on written prompts. Often, these programs rely on large language models. The datasets utilized by generativeAI large language models can included billions of parameters making it virtually impossible to determine how a programcame to a specific result.... [G]enerative AI can hallucinate or create inaccurate answers that sound convincing.” Fla. BarEthics Op. 24-1, at 1-2 (Jan. 19, 2024) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).End 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