The sanctions record · Florida Second District Court of Appeal, 2026
Capital Standard v. U.S. Bank
Capital Standard, LLC, Tchentsov, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA) · published opinion of 21 August 2026 (Rothstein-Youakim, J.)
Page verified 26 August 2026. Facts are from the court’s published opinion, linked below. The opinion is subject to revision prior to official publication.
The court documented forty-six fabricated or misdescribed citations across two briefs: thirty-one in the amended initial brief and fifteen in the reply. The sanction has four parts: a $1,500 fine, personal payment of the appellee’s appellate fees for the answer brief, referral to The Florida Bar, and a prohibition on charging the clients for any of it.
The record
- CourtFlorida Second District Court of Appeal
- PanelRothstein-Youakim, J.; Northcutt and Smith, JJ., concurring
- Docket2D2024-1392
- Opinion21 August 2026, published, 16 pages
- CounselKenneth H. Keefe, The Keefe Law Firm, P.A.
- Citations46 fabricated or misdescribed: 31 in the amended initial brief, 15 in the reply
- Show causeOrder of 8 January 2026; the response came more than a month late
- Sanction$1,500 to the clerk within fourteen days ($500 for the belated response, $1,000 for the AI misuse); personal payment of the appellee’s appellate fees for the answer brief, amount remanded; referral to The Florida Bar; no charge to the clients
- MeritsAffirmed; remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion
What the court recorded
The opinion names a case that does not exist, Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and real cases cited for propositions they do not contain, among them Maciejewski, Miami Country Day School v. Bakst, and Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank. The count is the court’s own: forty-six across the two briefs.
The timing matters. Since 15 June 2026, Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) has made every signature on a filing a representation that the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. This opinion is the consequence side of that representation.
Why it matters
Each part of the sanction lands on a different ledger. The $1,500 is paid and closed. The fee award is personal to counsel and its amount is still to be fixed on remand. The Bar referral is a disciplinary matter with its own record. And the prohibition on billing the clients puts the entire cost of the failure on the person who signed.
The opinion also situates itself in the published appellate line, citing among others Whiting v. City of Athens and Fletcher v. Experian. The pattern it describes is not novel, which is part of the point the court makes about the response it received.
The lesson for the next filing
The signature already certifies that the authorities exist and are accurately cited. What this record turned on was the absence of any evidence that a human checked before signing, and the month of silence after the court asked. A verification receipt made at the moment of filing answers the first question before it is asked.
Sources
Related
- The full sanctions record
- Florida Rule 2.515(d)(2): the signature certifies the citations
- Whiting v. City of Athens, the Sixth Circuit’s published line
- Mata v. Avianca, where the pattern began
Checked 26 August 2026 against the court’s published opinion, read in full. Information, not legal advice.
Information, not legal advice. Every entry is verified against the court’s own document or contemporaneous reporting; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.