Indiana Court of Appeals awards appellate fees against pro se appellant whose briefs cited authorities that were fabricated or did not support her claims

What happened

• Stacia Davis contested her late father's will in 2022. After a bench trial, the trial court upheld the will and ordered her to pay $22,208.18 of the special administrator's attorney fees, finding bad faith. It also found she had submitted an affidavit it called fraudulent.
• Davis appealed pro se. The opinion is mostly about the will contest and the trial fee award. The citation problems appear in the section on the administrator's cross-request for appellate fees.
• In her opening brief, she cited "T.R. v. G.T., 82 N.E.3d 319, 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)," and the court said no such case exists at that citation. It listed five more authorities that exist but do not support her points: In re Estate of Fanning, In re Estate of Wade, Estate of Banko v. Banko, Gast v. Hall, and Indiana Code section 29-1-7-17.
• Her reply brief repeated the miscited authorities and cited six more cases that "do not exist at the citations provided," including Estate of Rickert v. Robinson and Horton v. Trueblood. It also cited In re Estate of Grotrian, which exists but is an inheritance-tax decision that does not address testamentary capacity.
• The opinion does not use the words artificial intelligence or generative AI and does not say how the citations were produced. It does not report any explanation from Davis.
• Separately, her appendix omitted required items and her briefs lacked record citations, and she relied on evidence the trial court had not admitted.

What the court said

The court applied Rule 66(E), which it uses "with extreme restraint," and recognized that fees can rest on substantive or procedural bad faith. It held that the appeal meets the bad-faith standard "on both procedural and substantive grounds" (p. 17) and called it "permeated with meritlessness" (p. 19).

On the authorities, it said Davis's briefs "rest on authorities that are either fabricated or do not support the propositions for which they are cited" (p. 18). It noted that a pro se litigant who disregards the appellate rules in bad faith faces a fee award "to the same extent as a represented party" (p. 17).

Result: the trial judgment and the trial fee award were affirmed. The court declined to dismiss the appeal, granted the administrator's fee request, and remanded for the trial court to set the appellate fees. The opinion states no dollar amount for them. It adds that the trial court and parties may not act on the opinion until it is certified (Ind. App. R. 65(E)).

What it means for your firm

• A court can treat bad authorities as part of a bad-faith finding, not only as a stand-alone sanction. Here they supported a fee award on top of a lost appeal.
• The court did not need to find AI use. Nonexistent cases and authorities that do not support the claim were enough. Our reading: the label matters less to a judge than the verification failure.
• If you represent the opposing side of a pro se litigant, keep a running list of the bad citations and ask for fees in your brief. The administrator's counsel did, and it worked.
• Our reading: this holding sits next to the court's note that fees are rare and awarded "with extreme restraint." The citation problems here arrived with other defects, so do not expect fees on citations alone.
• Our reading: do not repeat figures from secondary summaries. The opinion states the trial fee ($22,208.18) but sets no appellate fee amount.

What to do Monday

1. In any brief where you answer a pro se opponent, check each cited reporter page and note which cases do not exist at the cite and which exist but do not support the point.
2. If the pattern appears in a reply brief too, say so in your response and ask for fees under the governing rule, not just a ruling for you on the merits.
3. Record the time your team spends verifying and reconstructing the record, because fee courts here looked at the added expense caused by the filings.
4. Before your own appellate brief goes out, have someone other than the drafter open every cited case and confirm that the cited page supports the stated proposition.

Sources

• Court record (opinion, No. 25A-PL-1882)
• AI Vortex Legal AI Risk record for this matter (Structured record in the public case database)

Operational information, not legal advice. Facts come from the court record linked under Sources, read on Oct 21, 2026. The reading of what it means for your firm is ours. A source link does not replace the full docket or later history.