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 briefs omitted record references and contained 25 made-up or badly erroneous citations, after an earlier panel had warned her.
Consequence
Appeal dismissed under ARCAP 25 as a sanction; the personal representative awarded his appellate attorney fees and costs.
Lesson
Here a second round of fabricated citations and missing record references after a prior appellate warning cost the appellant her appeal without merits review.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- In re Estate of Kuerschner (Kuerschner v. Kuerschner), No. 1 CA-CV 25-0491 PB (Ariz. App. Mar. 5, 2026) (mem. decision)
- Decided
- March 5, 2026
Summary
Self-represented appellant Stefanie A. Kuerschner, the widow of Thomas W. Kuerschner, appealed two attorney fee sanctions the Maricopa County probate court imposed after she kept litigating her late husband's estate case: one for serving 22 subpoenas after discovery closed and in defiance of court orders, and one for a motion accusing the personal representative, James T. Kuerschner, or a court clerk of removing a minute entry from the file. Division One found that her briefs "do not refer to the record" and "contain 25 citations that are made up or contain substantial errors like fake quotes or unsupported propositions." Its examples: "Orlandini v. Crawford (Arizona Court of Appeals)," a case the court could not locate "[a]fter diligent efforts"; a quotation attributed to Wallace v. Smith that the real case does not contain, with a reporter cite that pointed to a different case; Takieh v. O'Meara, described as vacating sanctions when it upheld a fee sanction; and In re Estate of Stewart, cited on probate fee awards when it "never even discusses attorney fees." The court noted that another panel had warned her about incorrect citations and missing record references in her earlier appeal in the same estate.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision finds 25 citations "made up or contain substantial errors" and says she continues "to fabricate citations," but does not mention AI)
- Sanction amount:
- Appeal dismissed under ARCAP 25; personal representative awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs under ARCAP 25 upon compliance with ARCAP 21 (amount not stated)
What sanction did the court impose?
In a memorandum decision by Vice Chief Judge Weinzweig (joined by Presiding Judge Brown and Judge Fabian), the court dismissed the appeal under ARCAP 25. It called this "Stefanie's second offense," noting "[w]e already admonished her in her prior appeal for these exact violations," and found "Stefanie's repeated and unrepentant violations warrant sanctions under ARCAP 25 to discourage similar behavior." It acknowledged that it is "generally reluctant to impose such sanctions" but held that "recidivism after a warning justifies this result." The court stated that it dismissed the appeal "because she continues to fabricate citations and omit record references despite our prior warning." Because the personal representative's counsel "spent time and resources identifying Stefanie's violations," the court awarded him his reasonable attorney fees and costs under ARCAP 25, upon compliance with ARCAP 21, also citing A.R.S. 12-349. The underlying fee sanctions were not reviewed on the merits.
Why does In re Estate of Kuerschner (Kuerschner v. Kuerschner) matter for law firms using AI?
Division One’s decision is short and turns on recidivism. The court said it is “generally reluctant” to impose ARCAP 25 sanctions, citing In re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, but held that “recidivism after a warning justifies this result.” The warning came from a September 2025 decision in her earlier appeal in the same estate, which this panel describes as having admonished her “for these exact violations.”
The court’s language is direct about the citations. It did not describe them as AI output; it described them as “made up,” referred to “fake quotes,” and concluded that she “continues to fabricate citations.” The examples show the range of defects: a case the court could not locate at all, a real case name paired with a quotation it does not contain and a reporter cite belonging to another case, and real cases described as holding the opposite of what they held or addressing issues they never discuss.
This dismissal became part of the record in her later appeals. In WRI Summit REIT LP v. Kuerschner, decided in August 2026, a different Division One panel relied on this March 2026 dismissal, along with the 2025 decision and a January 2026 order, as notice when it dismissed another of her appeals. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in Division One, a citation warning in one appeal was treated as notice in the same litigant’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.
- Document the verification of each citation's name, reporter cite, and quoted language; here one cite paired a real case name with a reporter page belonging to a different case.
- Review prior appellate decisions involving the same party for citation warnings; this court treated recidivism after a warning as the reason to dismiss.
- Consider requesting fees under ARCAP 25 where an opponent's briefing violates ARCAP 13; the court awarded fees because counsel spent time identifying the violations.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (the tracker lists the AI tool as 'Implied'). The decision never mentions artificial intelligence; it describes the citations as made up, fabricated, or containing fake quotes.