Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Can I represent myself in my Florida divorce case using ChatGPT or other artificial intelligence (AI)? It may be tempting to try to save money and rely on AI to help you draft appellate briefs, for example, but there have been multiple instances of AI citing fake cases. Doing so may expose the party citing the cases to sanctions from the court. This was an issue in the case Goya v. Hayashida, 4D2023-1212 (Fla. 4th DCA August 13, 2025).
In this divorce case, one issue appealed was the classification of a property titled in the name of the former husband’s relatives. The evidence showed the property was never titled in the husband’s name, but instead in the name of his parents and his aunt and uncle. At trial, the husband’s sister testified to substantiate this, and the former wife offered no evidence to the contrary. Nonetheless, the trial court classified the property as marital and the former husband appealed.
The appellate court reversed on this issue, holding “The trial court found that the Olgim property was a marital asset. However, the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Husband never acquired the Olgim property. The deed of sale identifies the Olgim property’s sellers, neither of whom are Husband. The record indicates either Husband’s parents or his aunt and uncle owned the Olgim property. Moreover, Wife did not present any evidence that Husband owned the Olgim property. Nor did Wife contradict Husband’s and his sister’s testimonies that Husband did not own the Olgim property, and thus, the Olgim property was a nonmarital asset. The trial court did not make findings of fact concerning the credibility of Husband and his sister. See Taylor v. Price, 273 So. 3d 24, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Therefore, the trial court’s finding that the Olgim property is a marital asset was erroneous because Husband’s and his sister’s statements ‘should be accepted as proof of the issue.’”
The court then commented on the former wife’s appellate brief, noting “Wife’s answer brief is replete with and entirely supported by fake cases and legal propositions, presumably generated by artificial intelligence (AI). [. . .] Wife, ‘as a pro se litigant, was still required to adequately present [her] arguments on appeal.’ Walker v. Est. of Yee, 376 So. 3d 758, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). [. . .] ‘It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.’ [. . .] ‘An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.’ [internal citations omitted].”
The court concluded with the warning “We have the authority to sanction Wife under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c).[internal citation omitted]. However, we decline to do so. Our decision is tempered by the fact that Wife is defending a judgment on appeal in an unrepresented capacity, Husband has not sought the imposition of sanctions, and Wife has not brought any other meritless or frivolous filings in this Court. [internal citation omitted]. Instead, we admonish Wife for her counterfeit brief and warn her that the Court will not regard similar infractions as mildly in the future.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how to proceed in your case.