DAVOS FRANCOIS
v.
VIVE FINANCIAL, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Davos Francois appealed an order denying his motion to vacate a default final judgment, arguing lack of standing. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a Rule 1.540(b) motion and that judgments entered despite a plaintiff's lack of standing are voidable, not void. The court also issued a cautionary opinion regarding the submission of fictitious case law and the use of generative AI tools in legal briefs.
Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a Rule 1.540(b) motion. Even where a judgment is entered in favor of a plaintiff that lacks standing, the judgment is merely voidable, not void. Therefore, the motion to vacate was properly denied.
[1] Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a motion to vacate a default final judgment.
[2] A judgment entered in favor of a plaintiff lacking standing is voidable, not void.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a rule 1.540 motion.”
Establishes the primary holding that standing defenses are barred in Rule 1.540 motions to vacate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrancois obtained a default final judgment against him in County Court, Broward County. He subsequently filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Fl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty Of Candor To The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
CIKLIN, J.
Appellant, acting pro se, seeks review of an order denying his motion to vacate a default final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Lack of standing cannot be raised for the first time in a rule 1.540 motion. Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Additionally, “[e]ven where a judgment is entered in favor of a plaintiff that lacks standing, the judgment is merely voidable, not void.” Id. Accordingly, we affirm.
We write separately to address a troubling issue in appellant's briefing. Multiple authorities cited by appellant in his filings, in both the trial court and this court, do not exist. Courts depend upon the accuracy and candor of citations presented by litigants. The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools— is sanctionable. See Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Russell v. Mells, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2609 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025) (referring counsel to the Florida Bar for filing imaginary legal authorities in a brief); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (sanctioning a pro se litigant for submitting fictitious case law to the court).
Attorneys and pro se litigants “are responsible for the content of their submissions to the court. Those who use artificial intelligence to assist in these submissions must ensure their accuracy.” Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (cautioning the pro se litigant about sanctions for citing “phantom authority").
Appellant is cautioned that future filings containing nonexistent authorities may result in sanctions. Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a).
Artificial intelligence may assist in research and drafting, but it cannot replace the lawyer's or litigant's duty to ensure that every authority cited is real, accurate, and applicable. The responsibility for what is filed rests with the human author, not the machine.
Affirmed.
KUNTZ, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hessert v. Hessert, 2026 WL 785016 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…internal quotation marks omitted). [*3] Aug. 29, 2025) (case involving an attorney's improper use of AI); Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC, 418 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (case involving a pro se litigant's improper use of AI); Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (case involving a pro se litigant's improper use of AI); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (case involving a pro se litigant's improper use of AI). Although AI is a relatively new technology, and although…
-
Gouldy v. Chiasson (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 83 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Gutierrez v. In re Noemi D. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
- Russell v. Mells, 426 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)