Englert v. Gateway Crossing Property Owners Association, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Indiana · Ind. Ct. App. · Indiana bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se homeowner cited nonexistent and miscited cases across his filings and proposed orders; he admitted not reading those in his amended complaint.
Consequence
$23,222 fee award for frivolous claims affirmed; the court called his defective citations 'critical' to the frivolousness analysis.
Lesson
Fabricated citations can travel into orders a court signs, and they can contribute to the frivolousness finding behind a large fee award.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Englert v. Gateway Crossing Property Owners Ass'n, No. 26A-MI-133 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2026) (mem. dec.)
- Decided
- September 18, 2026
Summary
John L. Englert, a homeowner who had paid annual assessments to Gateway Crossing Property Owners Association since 2016, sued the association pro se in Hancock Circuit Court alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, professional incompetence, and negligence, and seeking release from the association. The Court of Appeals found that his filings below "were filled with case law that either does not exist, was cited incorrectly, or was plainly irrelevant to the statement it was offered to support." Nonexistent cases included "Sunset Sailboat Sales, Inc. v. Trautman," cited in his amended complaint and motion to compel, and two more cited in a supplement to his motion to correct error. Real cases were given wrong citations or cited for propositions they do not address. A few of Englert's proposed orders, which the trial court signed, also cited fictitious or miscited cases. At trial, cross-examined about the fictitious and inapplicable case law in his amended complaint, Englert admitted he had not read those cases before citing them, and he did not pursue any of his five pleaded claims. The trial court granted a directed verdict and awarded the association $23,222.00 in attorney's fees for frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless claims.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision records nonexistent and miscited cases and notes that the trial judge commented on "the dangers of relying on artificial intelligence" for legal research, but makes no finding that Englert used AI)
- Sanction amount:
- Fee award under Ind. Code 34-52-1-1 for frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless claims (trial court award, affirmed; the Court of Appeals found the nonexistent and miscited case law critical to the frivolousness conclusion); appellate fees denied; amount in the outcome
What sanction did the court impose?
In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed. After first securing its jurisdiction by directing the trial court to enter its signed directed-verdict order nunc pro tunc, it treated the directed verdict as an involuntary dismissal under Trial Rule 41(B) and held Englert's challenge waived for lack of cogent argument, noting that two of the primary cases in his appellate brief do not exist. It held his evidentiary argument waived and that no special findings were required. On fees, it concluded the record amply supported the conclusion that his claims were frivolous, finding it "critical to our analysis" that his filings relied on nonexistent, miscited, and irrelevant case law, and it affirmed the $23,222.00 award as within the trial court's discretion. The court denied the association's request for appellate attorney's fees under Appellate Rule 66(E): the association did not develop the request beyond one sentence in the conclusion of its own brief, did not state the applicable standard, and offered no evidence of specific behavior by Englert other than the citation of two fictitious cases in his brief, so it had not made the required showing.
Why does Englert v. Gateway Crossing Property Owners Association, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Englert is notable less for the fee amount than for where the fabricated authority ended up. The Court of Appeals found that Englert’s practice of citing fictitious cases “also extended to the proposed orders he filed with the trial court,” a few of which the trial court signed and entered. One order cited “Kroger Co. v. Blanke,” a case the court found does not exist; another contained three nonexistent cases. The court observed that “[t]he trial court had the ultimate responsibility to review and ensure the accuracy of the orders it signed,” but added that Englert “also had a responsibility to present legitimate legal authority to the court in the first place.”
The citations then did real work in the fee analysis. Reviewing the frivolousness conclusion de novo, the court found it “critical to our analysis that Englert’s filings below were filled with case law that either does not exist, was cited incorrectly, or was plainly irrelevant to the statement it was offered to support.” Combined with his abandonment of all five pleaded claims at trial, that supported affirming the $23,222.00 award under Indiana’s General Recovery Rule.
The decision stops short of an AI finding. Its only reference to artificial intelligence is the Court of Appeals’ own description of the trial judge’s end-of-trial statement, which it said was the court “commenting to Englert about the dangers of relying on artificial intelligence when doing legal research.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that proposed orders are filings like any other, and that an error a judge adopts by signature does not shift responsibility away from the party that drafted it.
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.
- Verify every citation in a proposed order before submitting it. The court noted that a few of Englert's proposed orders, signed and entered by the trial court, cited nonexistent or miscited cases.
- Review whether cited authority was actually read before filing. Englert admitted at trial that he had not read the cases cited in his amended complaint.
- Consider that a court may weigh fictitious citations in deciding whether a claim was frivolous for fee-shifting purposes, not only as a separate sanction question.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (the tracker lists the AI tool as 'Implied'). The decision's only reference to artificial intelligence is that the trial judge, at the end of trial, commented to Englert 'about the dangers of relying on artificial intelligence when doing legal research'; the decision does not find that Englert used AI.