Villanueva v. Bowers
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Ariz. Ct. App. · Arizona bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented mother filed briefs with a non-existent case and impossible pin cites, denied the errors when flagged, then admitted using generative AI.
Consequence
Appellee awarded appellate fees and costs under A.R.S. 25-324 and ARCAP 25, though the appellant won on the merits: the support order was vacated and remanded.
Lesson
Denying a flagged citation problem before admitting AI use turned an error into what the court called a lie, and supported a fee award.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Villanueva v. Bowers, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0345 FC (Ariz. App. June 11, 2026) (mem. decision)
- Decided
- June 11, 2026
Summary
Self-represented appellant Natashia Villanueva ("Mother") appealed a Mohave County child support order that raised her monthly obligation from $344.54 to $1,997. The court found that her opening brief "contained citations to a non-existent case, citations to cases with incorrect and impossible pin cites, citations to a memorandum decision issued before 2015, and other errors." When the appellee, represented by counsel, raised the problems in his answering brief and argued waiver, Mother denied the errors in her reply and "insist[ed] her citations were correct." The court then ordered a supplemental brief addressing the citations, and in it "she then confessed she used generative artificial intelligence to produce her briefs and failed to check the accuracy of her briefs' citations." The court described her reply as having "doubled down and lied to the Court" rather than admitting AI use.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (the self-represented appellant "confessed she used generative artificial intelligence to produce her briefs"; tool not identified)
- Sanction amount:
- Appellee awarded his reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs under A.R.S. 25-324 and ARCAP 25, amount to be set on compliance with ARCAP 21; appellant's own fee request denied
What sanction did the court impose?
In a memorandum decision (Morse, J., joined by Jacobs, P.J., and Furuya, J.), the court found that Mother's briefs failed to comply with ARCAP 13 and Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c)(1) and were "inadequately supported by legal authority," but declined to find waiver because the child support calculation affects the children's best interests. On the merits it held that the superior court's $10,000-per-month income finding was unsupported because it counted "anticipated" expenses for the children, vacated the child support order, and remanded. On fees, it denied Mother's request and held that "Mother's behavior on appeal is unreasonable," awarding the appellee his reasonable attorney fees and costs under A.R.S. section 25-324 and ARCAP 25, contingent on his ARCAP 21 application. The decision does not state an amount.
Why does Villanueva v. Bowers matter for law firms using AI?
The decision separates the merits from the misconduct. The court agreed with the appellee that Mother’s briefs were deficient and that waiver was available, but it noted that “waiver is a discretionary doctrine” and that it generally declines to find waiver “when a child’s best interests are at issue.” Because the child support calculation affects the children, it reached the merits and vacated the order on a ground unrelated to the fabricated citations: the superior court had treated $3,400 in “anticipated” future expenses for the children as evidence of Mother’s current income.
The misconduct was addressed through fees. The court found that Mother’s briefs “contained numerous citation errors and presented false and inapposite legal authority,” and that “[w]hen confronted by Father, Mother doubled down and lied to the Court in her reply brief instead of admitting to her use of artificial intelligence.” It held her conduct on appeal unreasonable and awarded the appellee his fees and costs under A.R.S. section 25-324 and ARCAP 25. The sequence matters: the admission came only after the court ordered a supplemental brief on the citation problems.
For practitioners opposing self-represented parties in Arizona family appeals, the decision shows that identifying fabricated authority in an answering brief can shift appellate fees even where the court goes on to rule against the client on the merits. Firms documenting compliance may wish to note that the court cited the reply-brief denial, which it called a lie, alongside the citation errors as grounds for the fee award.
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.
- Consider that firms opposing a self-represented party may wish to review that party's citations early and note defects in the answering brief. Here the appellee's answering brief flagged the problems; the court later ordered a supplemental brief on them and awarded the appellee his fees.
- Consider A.R.S. 25-324 and ARCAP 25 as fee grounds in family appeals where the opposing party's briefing relies on false authority. The court tied its award to the appellant's conduct on appeal, including the citation errors and her denial of them.
- Document that a court may decline waiver in best-interests matters even when the briefing is deficient, so a citation-error argument may not end the merits review.