Asked again and again to name any concern about the children, Davis named none, then filed four motions against Husband in one day. The two about the children rest on a misquote of Husband's own filing. Asked for the basis, Davis answered: "I do not owe you an explanation about anything unless I am ordered to do so."
A lawyer who puts quotation marks around an opposing party's filing reproduces the words in their order and keeps any clause that changes their meaning. Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) bars a knowingly false statement of fact to a tribunal, and a quotation is a statement of fact about what the document says. Davis had to quote paragraphs 21 and 26 in their own words and order, keep the clauses that gave their cause, and plead a fact about the children.
- May 29, 2024: Davis appeared for Wife; his first motion about the children came 198 days later. N-013
- Dec. 13, 2024: four motions: compel 7:31 a.m. (Doc 67), default 8:32 a.m. (Doc 75), guardian ad litem 11:12 a.m. (Doc 69), psychological examination 1:45 p.m. (Doc 77). Doc 69 para. 6a, repeated in Doc 77: Husband has "severe mental, physical, and emotional conditions..." Doc 22 para. 21: "unable to work due to severe physical, mental and emotional conditions related to these marital and other recent issues." Both also quote him as "certainly in part out of anger and frustration..." and stop. Para. 26 continues: "but primarily in hopes that Petitioner would simply provide the requested bank statements." These quotations are Doc 69's only allegations about Husband; it names no incident, date, or witness involving either child. N-013, N-001Read them: Wife's Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem, Dec. 13, 2024 (Doc 69) (link pending redacted copy) · Husband's Response, May 16, 2024 (Doc 22), paras. 21 and 26 (link pending redacted copy)
- Jan. 7 to 8, 2025: Husband to Davis: "I've asked you numerous times about the basis for changing from 50/50 custody to [Wife] filing for primary custody. You've raised zero concerns with me." Davis, fourteen minutes after Husband's next email: "I do not owe you an explanation about anything unless I am ordered to do so." N-013Davis moved to put a guardian ad litem between the children and their father. What was the concern about the children?Read them: Husband's email, Jan. 7, 2025 (Doc 121, p. 3) (link pending redacted copy)
- Jan. 21, 2025 and June 25, 2026: Davis dropped the default: "I filed a motion for default, but then Mr. Hanson filed an answer. So I am not pursuing that." Doc 69 was granted eighteen months later; the order makes no finding on Husband's fitness. The psychological-examination motion has no ruling. N-013
Scott Paul Davis signed all four motions for Wife, the movant on each. One lawyer, one day, four signed filings, one document he quoted. Every duty here arises from those pages set beside the paragraphs they cite; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, ss. 9 and 23, Fla. Const.: due process, and a parent's right to raise his children. Section 61.13(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat., presumes equal time-sharing is in the children's best interest; Doc 69 para. 5 acknowledges it; Wife carries the burden to rebut it. Section 61.401 requires a best-interest finding, and Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.360 good cause; the movant carries both. Rules 4-3.3(a)(1) and 4-3.1 bind the lawyer who quotes; section 57.105(1) exposes party and counsel to fees for a claim unsupported by the material facts.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Asked again and again to name any concern about the children, Davis named none, then filed four motions against Husband in one day.
On December 13, 2024, the day Husband's counsel exited on one-day notice over his objection (N-014), Davis filed four motions between 7:31 AM and 1:45 PM: a motion to compel, a judicial default, a guardian ad litem, and a psychological evaluation of Husband. The evaluation motion is unverified; its only allegation about Husband not drawn from his own earlier filing is that his conduct had "become increasingly unstable and erratic." Both child-related motions quote his sentence about withholding payment "certainly in part out of anger and frustration" and stop before the rest of that sentence, which explained he did it to get Wife to produce the bank statements. The very next paragraph of that filing reads: "The last thing Respondent wanted to do was to make this ugly and spend money on lawyers that could be spent on or saved for the children ... He has gone to great lengths of which he is very proud to put the children first." The default was abandoned within six weeks. The compel was granted in part. The guardian ad litem was granted eighteen months later with no unfitness finding. The psychological-evaluation motion has never been resolved. [IGNORED: evaluation prong never resolved]
A motion must have a good-faith basis when filed; what Wife's side did with its own motions is the measure. Husband offered signed medical releases and evaluation attendance, no compulsion needed; Davis declined on the record, stating they wanted a guardian ad litem instead (N-016). The appointment order that finally issued made no findings on Husband's fitness, ordered no evaluation, and stated no concern about the children. The other three motions: abandoned, granted in part, never resolved.
four motions against Husband in one day, two of them quoting his own sentence about withholding a payment and stopping at "out of anger and frustration," before the words that say he did it to get the bank statements
- Docs 067 (7:31 AM), 075 (8:32 AM, para. 7.b), 069 (11:12 AM, p.2 para. 6), 077 (1:45 PM, p.2 paras. 4-6, para. 10).
- Doc 22 para. 26 (the truncated sentence).
- Doc 118 Tr. 9:14-16.
- Doc 138 (partial grant, 2/19/25); source audit on file.
- Related decision points: N-044. Doc 22 para. 27, p. 4 (the paragraph after para. 26); the quotation’s ellipsis omits one clause about health and changes no meaning.