Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Finds Rule 11(b)(2) Violations in Pro Se Brief Citing Nonexistent Cases, Imposes No Sanction

What happened

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee of the Chalet Series IV Trust, sued Rosy Esprecion Thomas and others in 2016 to foreclose a residential mortgage. After two denied motions, the bank's third motion for summary judgment was granted in October 2024 and an amended judgment followed in November 2024. Thomas, representing herself, appealed.

Her opening brief did not follow the appellate briefing rule (HRAP 28(b)). The court read it generously because she was self-represented. In a footnote, it identified three citations as not real:

• Gapero v. K.J.K. Corp., 126 Hawai'i 387, 271 P.3d 1211 (App. 2012).
• Kekauoha-Alisa, 141 Hawai'i 80, 404 P.3d 276 (2017).
• Harris v. Palm Beach County, with no reporter citation.

The footnote also says she cited "several authorities, cases, statutes, and court rules" for propositions they "do not even remotely support." The order does not say how the court found out, does not say the brief was written with an AI tool, and does not name one. It uses the word "hallucinations" for the problem.

What the court said

The court dealt with the fake citations in a footnote and decided the appeal on the merits. Its footnote says: "These cases do not exist." It then says the citations "are violations of HRCP Rule 11(b)(2), made applicable by HRAP Rule 2.1(a)" (n. 2, p. 2).

It then affirmed. The bank had shown through a law firm paralegal's declaration and business records that its counsel held the original indorsed-in-blank note when the complaint was filed, which established standing. Thomas gave no affidavit or evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. The forgery argument was waived because it was not raised in the circuit court.

The order imposes no sanction and does not discuss one. It adds a remark about the other side: "It is concerning that Bank's answering brief did not call our attention to any of the hallucinations" (n. 2, p. 2).

What it means for your firm

• The court noticed the fake cases and the opposing party did not. If your firm is the one answering a pro se brief, the court expects you to catch and flag them. Our reading: this is the part most likely to catch a firm off guard.
• A finding of a Rule 11(b)(2) violation can come with no penalty and still be on the record. Our reading: that is a reputational cost for a lawyer and a signal for how a court may treat a repeat.
• Pro se filings may be the main source of fake citations you will see. A cite-check on every opposing brief is cheap.
• Misdescribed authority was flagged along with invented cases. A real case cited for a point it does not support got the same treatment.
• The merits outcome did not change. The bank won on the evidence, so the fake citations did not decide the case, but they were still called out.

What to do Monday

1. Add a step to your answering-brief checklist to pull and read every authority the other side cites, including those from a self-represented party.
2. Where you find a nonexistent or misdescribed authority, put it in the answering brief or a short notice to the court, with the search you ran to show it does not exist.
3. Build a one-page template that cites the court's Rule 11(b)(2) reasoning from this order's footnote, adapted to your jurisdiction's equivalent rule.
4. Log each such finding, who made it and the result, so that a repeated pattern from the same filer is documented.

Sources

• Court record (Summary Disposition Order, Oct 8, 2026)
• 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.