Arrieta v. Cervantes
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented father's appellate brief cited two cases that do not exist and several irrelevant ones in a child support arrearage appeal.
Consequence
Order affirmed; mother awarded appellate fees and costs as an ARCAP 25 sanction, given the brief's noncompliance and a legally frivolous adoption argument.
Lesson
An appellee answering a noncompliant brief that cited nonexistent cases and made a frivolous argument recovered appellate fees as an ARCAP 25 sanction.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Arrieta v. Cervantes, No. 2 CA-CV 2025-0103-FC (Ariz. App. July 15, 2026) (mem. decision)
- Decided
- July 15, 2026
Summary
Self-represented appellant Joseph Cervantes appealed a February 2025 Pima County order requiring monthly payments on child support arrearages owed under a 2008 order, and the denial of his motion to vacate. He argued that the child's 2025 adoption extinguished his support obligations under A.R.S. section 8-117(B), citing "State v. Gilman, a case which does not exist," while the court noted that "the very real case" of In re Marriage of Ramirez & Alarcon (App. 1992) had rejected his reading of the statute. On another issue he cited "Silva v. De Mendoza, another case which does not exist." The court found other authorities he cited irrelevant: Johnson v. Elson ("a wholly irrelevant case involving the propriety of reinstatement of a personal injury suit after dismissal") and Kline v. Kline ("yet another irrelevant case"). On the commissioner-assignment issue it wrote: "With respect to this issue, Cervantes's opening brief is entirely deficient. Aside from his citation of nonexistent and irrelevant legal authority, his argument is conclusory and undeveloped." The appellees were the child's mother, Elizabeth Arrieta, and the State of Arizona ex rel. the Department of Economic Security.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision identifies two nonexistent cases but does not attribute them to AI)
- Sanction amount:
- Appellee Arrieta awarded her reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs as a sanction under ARCAP 25, amount to be set on compliance with ARCAP 21(b)
What sanction did the court impose?
In a memorandum decision (Eppich, Vice Chief Judge, with Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly concurring), Division Two affirmed. It rejected the adoption argument on the merits, held it lacked jurisdiction over his challenge to the 2008 order, treated the commissioner-assignment issue as waived, and rejected his Title IV-D arguments. Arrieta asked for her appellate attorney fees as a sanction under ARCAP 25 "for having to respond to an opening brief that cites no actual legal authority in support of the arguments set forth therein." The court agreed that "such an award is warranted given the noncompliant nature of Cervantes's brief and his legally frivolous argument that the adoption wiped away his obligation to pay arrearages for child support," and awarded Arrieta reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal upon her compliance with ARCAP 21(b). The decision does not state an amount.
Why does Arrieta v. Cervantes matter for law firms using AI?
The decision is a compact example of how Arizona appellate courts respond to nonexistent authority without making any finding about its source. Division Two identified two cases that do not exist, State v. Gilman and Silva v. De Mendoza, and two real cases (Johnson v. Elson and Kline v. Kline) that it called irrelevant to the points for which they were cited. It did not ask how the citations were produced and did not mention artificial intelligence. The response came instead through the merits (the adoption argument failed under a real 1992 decision, In re Marriage of Ramirez & Alarcon) and through ARCAP 13 waiver on the issues the brief did not develop.
The sanction came at the appellee’s request. Arrieta sought fees under ARCAP 25 for having to respond to a brief without real supporting authority, and the court granted them, pairing the brief’s noncompliance with the frivolousness of the adoption argument. The court restated that “we hold unrepresented litigants to the same standards as attorneys and do not afford them special leniency.”
For firms representing appellees against self-represented parties, the decision indicates that an ARCAP 25 request can shift appellate fees when the opposing brief is noncompliant and its central argument is legally frivolous. Firms documenting compliance may wish to note that the decision addresses each nonexistent or irrelevant citation in the course of deciding the issue it was offered for.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Consider requesting fees under ARCAP 25 when an opposing brief relies on nonexistent or irrelevant authority. Division Two granted the request, pointing to the brief's noncompliance and a frivolous argument.
- Review a self-represented opponent's citations against the reporters before answering. The appellee framed her request around a brief that cites 'no actual legal authority'; the court found the award 'warranted given the noncompliant nature of Cervantes's brief and his legally frivolous argument that the adoption wiped away his obligation to pay arrearages for child support.'
- Document that self-represented parties are held to attorney briefing standards in Arizona appellate courts; the court applied that rule here without special leniency.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the decision does not mention artificial intelligence. That the nonexistent cases were AI-generated is a Charlotin tracker inference ('Implied'), not a finding of the court.