Boatner v. Hickerson
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · Mo. Ct. App. E.D. · Missouri bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant's amended brief relied on four fictitious cases; she conceded at oral argument that she used A.I. to draft parts of it.
Consequence
Appeal dismissed for rule violations; $10,000 in Rule 84.19 damages awarded to the respondent for appellate attorney's fees.
Lesson
Here the Eastern District called fictitious citations fraud on the court and, finding the appeal frivolous, awarded the respondent $10,000 in appellate fees against a pro se appellant.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Boatner v. Hickerson, No. ED113978 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. June 2, 2026) (Wright, P.J.)
- Decided
- June 2, 2026
Summary
Terrina Boatner, acting pro se, sued Tina Hickerson in St. Louis County to quiet title to a property on Capitol Drive and obtained a default judgment after an order for service by publication. The trial court later set the default judgment aside, found Boatner had no standing, and dismissed her case with prejudice. On appeal, the Eastern District had already found her first brief deficient under Rules 84.04 and 84.06 and pointed her to its appellate-practice guide. Her amended brief cited six cases. The court found that Brungard v. Risky's Inc. and City of Greenwood v. Martin Marietta Materials were real but were cited only under her points relied on, and that the remaining four (Davis v. Bess, Jones v. Jones, Kelley v. Kelley, and Stein v. Steeplechase Condominiums, Inc.) "are fictitious." Boatner "conceded at oral argument she used A.I. to draft parts of her brief." The appeal also failed to identify the final judgment in the notice of appeal; her supplemental legal file still omitted documents that a January 9, 2026 order required her to file, and, "[d]espite this Court's warning," she never ordered the hearing transcript; and her brief violated the briefing rules in the appendix, tables, statement of facts, points relied on, and argument.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified AI (appellant 'conceded at oral argument she used A.I. to draft parts of her brief'; the court found four cited cases fictitious; tool not named)
- Sanction amount:
- $10,000 in damages under Rule 84.19 for a frivolous appeal, entered as a judgment against the appellant in favor of the respondent (for appellate attorney's fees)
What sanction did the court impose?
The court granted Hickerson's motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal did not invoke jurisdiction over the October 7, 2025 judgment, the record was incomplete under Rule 81.12, and the amended brief did not substantially comply with Rule 84.04, stating that "[t]he numerous briefing deficiencies and the submission of fictitious cases generated by A.I. prevent this Court from engaging in any meaningful review." It added that "even if Boatner had appealed from the final judgment with a brief that was compliant with Rule 84.04, her claims wholly lacked merit." Finding the appeal frivolous under Rule 84.19, in a section headed "Sanctions," the court described its "most troubling aspect" as "fraud on the Court," quoted Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024), that citing nonexistent case law is making a false statement to a court, and noted that Hickerson had to cross-reference Boatner's filings, supplement the record, and attend oral argument. It awarded Hickerson $10,000 for appellate attorney's fees, as a judgment against Boatner on which execution may issue. Hickerson's motion to dismiss had sought "all such other and further relief [a]s deemed just and proper," and the court noted, quoting Kruse, that Eastern District Local Rule 400 does not apply to damages under Rule 84.19.
Why does Boatner v. Hickerson matter for law firms using AI?
Boatner is the Eastern District applying its own precedent. The court called Kruse v. Karlen its “first case addressing a party submitting an appellate brief with citations to fictitious cases” and said Kruse “served as warning to parties that it is impermissible to file an appellate brief containing fictitious citations and there will be consequences for such actions. This case is no exception, and this Court must not only dismiss the matter but also impose sanctions.” Two years on, the court treated fictitious authority as more than a briefing defect: “citing nonexistent caselaw constitutes making a false statement to this Court,” and Boatner’s submission “represents a flagrant violation of the duties of candor owed to this Court by parties, including pro se litigants.”
The dismissal rested on several defects together. The notice of appeal did not specify the final judgment, the legal file still lacked documents the court had ordered filed and Boatner never ordered the hearing transcript despite a warning, and the amended brief still missed the Rule 84.04 requirements after the court had allowed a second attempt. The court counted the fictitious citations among those reasons: “The numerous briefing deficiencies and the submission of fictitious cases generated by A.I. prevent this Court from engaging in any meaningful review.” It also said that even a compliant appeal from the final judgment would have “wholly lacked merit.” At the sanctions stage, the court described the “most troubling aspect” of the appeal as “fraud on the Court” and held that “[t]he utilization of A.I. does not excuse a party’s responsibility of confirming the existence of the cases cited in support of his or her arguments.”
The remedy compensates the opposing party. Rule 84.19 damages serve both to keep meritless appeals off the docket and to repay respondents’ defense costs, and the court tied its $10,000 award to what Hickerson had to do: decipher the issues, complete the record, check the accuracy of Boatner’s filings, and argue the case. Firms representing a respondent against a self-represented appellant may note that the court entered the award as a judgment on which execution may issue, on a motion that asked for “all such other and further relief [a]s deemed just and proper.”
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.
- Document the cost of responding to a brief with fabricated authority. The court's fee award relied on the respondent's work to cross-reference the filings, complete the record, and attend argument.
- Consider that the court awarded Rule 84.19 damages where the respondent's motion asked for 'all such other and further relief,' noting (quoting Kruse) that Eastern District Local Rule 400 does not apply to such damages.
- Review filings against Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024), which this opinion described as having 'served as warning to parties' that fictitious citations will have consequences.