Singletary v. SWBC Mortgage Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 5th Cir. · Louisiana bar guidance , Mississippi bar guidance , Texas bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant relied on AI-hallucinated case citations in 5th Cir. quiet title / breach-of-contract appellate briefing.
Consequence
Dismissal affirmed on the merits. Warning issued. No monetary sanction. FRAP 38 caution for future filings.
Lesson
Fifth Circuit signals FRAP 38 in subsequent filings rather than imposing monetary sanctions on first AI-hallucination appearance.
Verified May 6, 2026
- Citation
- Singletary v. SWBC Mortg. Corp., No. 25-20441 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2026) (Davis, Wilson, Douglas, JJ.) (unpublished)
- Decided
- March 17, 2026
Summary
Pro se appellant Singletary appealed the district court's dismissal of his quiet title and breach-of-contract claims against SWBC Mortgage Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The Fifth Circuit panel (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) affirmed on the merits, holding that the underlying Deed of Trust contained no transfer-restriction provision capable of supporting Singletary's claims. The panel separately observed that Singletary's appellate briefing relied on case citations the court characterized as AI-hallucinated, with no support in actual Fifth Circuit precedent. The court declined to impose a monetary sanction in this order but warned that continued failure to verify cited authority in any future filing could trigger Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 sanctions.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified; the opinion refers to 'AI-hallucinated case law' without naming a particular tool.
What sanction did the court impose?
Dismissal affirmed on the merits. Warning issued regarding AI-hallucinated case citations. No monetary sanction. FRAP 38 caution for future filings.
Why does Singletary v. SWBC Mortgage Corp. matter for law firms using AI?
Singletary is the warning-tier Fifth Circuit AI hallucination opinion. The court did not sanction; it affirmed on the merits and used the AI commentary as a separate observation. The verbatim phrasing “he relies heavily on AI-hallucinated case law, and his theory finds no support in our actual case law” is precise: the court is naming AI as the cause of the fabricated citations and naming the absence of supporting precedent in actual case law as the consequence.
For the Fifth Circuit specifically, the implication is that FRAP 38 is the next escalation, not the alternative posture. A pro se appellant who appears in a future filing in front of any Fifth Circuit panel after a Singletary-style warning has been put on notice that the next AI hallucination triggers monetary consequences. For attorney filings, the same posture applies even more sharply: the warning step is shorter or absent, and Rule 38 monetary consequences are likely on first appearance for represented parties.
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.
- Track which Fifth Circuit panels have issued AI-hallucination warnings to anticipate the FRAP 38 escalation step in subsequent filings before the same court.
- Document a citation-verification step in appellate practice that confirms each cited case exists in a real Fifth Circuit reporter or West reporter, not just that the format is well-formed.
Sources
Primary sources
- The opinion characterizes case citations as 'AI-hallucinated' without naming specific fabricated cases. Identifying which cited authorities were fabricated would require comparing the appellant's brief against the opinion's citation analysis, which was beyond this verification pass.