Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 2026

Docket4D2025-1309

StatusPublished

This text of Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc. (Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Samantha Roussell v. the Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samantha-roussell-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-etc-fladistctapp-2026.