In re Estate of Kuerschner (Kuerschner v. Kuerschner)
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented widow's probate appeal brief lacked record citations and cited a case that, as far as the court could determine, does not exist, with reporter cites belonging to other cases.
Consequence
No sanction for the citations; the court reached the merits and affirmed, awarding appellate fees on other grounds. Later panels treated this decision as her warning.
Lesson
Here the court excused a nonexistent citation once and decided the merits, but later panels treated this decision as notice when they dismissed her next appeals.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- In re Estate of Kuerschner (Kuerschner v. Kuerschner), No. 1 CA-CV 25-0108 PB (Ariz. App. Sept. 30, 2025) (mem. decision)
- Decided
- September 30, 2025
Summary
Stefanie Kuerschner, representing herself, appealed a Maricopa County probate judgment rejecting her claims against the estate of her late husband, Thomas W. Kuerschner, whose will left her nothing, and awarding the estate attorney fees and costs. The personal representative, his son James T. Kuerschner, argued that her opening brief "does not cite to the record," contains "incorrect [case] citations," and misrepresents the holdings of cited cases. Division One agreed that the brief "is, indeed, devoid of the record citations required by ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A), and her case citations are often inaccurate." It gave one example: a citation to "In re Adoption of J.E.B., 164 Ariz. 265, 792 P.2d 724 (Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that denying a parent a short continuance to obtain counsel may be reversible error. The court wrote that "[n]othing about this citation is accurate": the two reporter cites belong to two different Arizona Supreme Court decisions, neither captioned J.E.B.; a 2002 Mississippi decision bears that caption but did not involve a continuance; and "[a]s far as this Court can determine, this case that Stefanie cites in her briefing does not exist." The decision does not mention artificial intelligence.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision says a cited case appears not to exist but does not mention AI)
- Amount or terms:
- None for the citation errors; the court declined to find waiver and reached the merits. Appellate fees and costs were awarded to the estate under A.R.S. 14-1105 for her continued pursuit of meritless claims, not for the citations
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a memorandum decision by Judge Kiley (joined by Presiding Judge Paton and Judge Furuya), the court declined to treat the brief's deficiencies as a waiver. Because "resolution of cases on their merits is preferred," it addressed "the substance of the arguments she raises to the extent they are developed sufficiently," deeming undeveloped arguments waived. It rejected her continuance and Exhibit 64 challenges on the merits, deemed her challenge to the findings abandoned, held her fee challenge waived (and alternatively unsupported), and affirmed. It granted the estate its fees and costs on appeal under A.R.S. 14-1105 because "Stefanie's continued pursuit of meritless claims has unreasonably caused the Estate to incur fees on appeal." The decision imposes no sanction for the citation errors and contains no separate warning paragraph. Later Division One decisions nonetheless describe this decision as having warned or admonished her about incorrect citations and missing record references, and in March 2026 a different panel relied on it as the prior warning when it dismissed her next appeal under ARCAP 25.
Why does In re Estate of Kuerschner (Kuerschner v. Kuerschner) matter for law firms using AI?
This decision is the first step in a sequence. Division One found the appellant’s brief devoid of record citations and her case citations “often inaccurate,” and it traced one citation to its end: the Arizona Reports cite led to Jepson v. New, the Pacific Reporter cite to Eardley v. Greenberg, and a case bearing that name was a Mississippi Supreme Court decision on a different issue. The court concluded, with a stated qualification, that “[a]s far as this Court can determine, this case that Stefanie cites in her briefing does not exist.”
The court chose leniency. Citing the preference for merits resolution, it declined to hold that the deficiencies waived appellate review and addressed her developed arguments, rejecting some on the merits and treating others as abandoned or waived before affirming. The appellate fee award rested on A.R.S. 14-1105 and her “continued pursuit of meritless claims,” not on the citation errors.
Later panels treated this decision as the warning. In March 2026, a different Division One panel dismissed her next appeal in the same estate under ARCAP 25, describing this decision as having admonished her “for these exact violations,” and in August 2026 WRI Summit REIT LP v. Kuerschner dismissed another. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a decision that imposes nothing for a citation error can still function as the notice that justifies a sanction in the same party’s later appeals.
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 that a case name and its reporter citations refer to the same decision; here both cites led to unrelated Arizona Supreme Court cases.
- Review whether an appellate court's first encounter with a party's citation errors will be treated as notice; later Division One panels described this decision as a warning even though it imposed no sanction.
- Document record citations for every factual assertion in an appellate brief; the court found this brief devoid of the record citations ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) requires.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI: the decision does not mention artificial intelligence, and this decision was not located in the Charlotin or Ropes & Gray trackers; nothing in this entry attributes the citation error to AI. It is included because the court itself found that a cited case does not exist.