Reported / Citable
Background
Anna Sheerer and Thomas Panas began dissolution proceedings in 2019 and have two children with a 50/50 timeshare. Earlier child support orders, including a 2020 order with a Smith-Ostler provision, accounted for fluctuating income by ordering additional support based on bonuses and other variable compensation above a base amount. In 2023, Sheerer moved to modify the existing order based on changes in both parties’ incomes and her employment status.
The trial court adopted a Department of Child Support Services guideline calculation showing $2,388 in monthly child support, retroactive to July 2023. The DCSS calculation, however, did not include Panas’s bonus income or restricted stock unit (RSU) compensation, and the resulting written order omitted any Smith-Ostler provision. Sheerer appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to account for Panas’s bonus and RSU income and violated her due process rights by not holding an adequate hearing on her bonus income request. The California Department of Child Support Services agreed with the bonus income argument.
Panas, representing himself, submitted a respondent’s brief that contained quotes attributed to published cases that did not contain the quotes, citations to nonexistent cases, and inaccurate descriptions of authorities he did cite. The brief also failed to comply with California Rules of Court rule 8.204 regarding format, content, and record citations. In a court-ordered declaration, Panas admitted that the fabrications were the result of his use of a generative artificial intelligence tool to draft the brief.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, in a partially published opinion, reversed the child support order and remanded for reassessment of Panas’s child support obligation based on his full income, including bonuses and RSU compensation. In the unpublished portion, the court held that the trial court erred by omitting Panas’s variable compensation from the guideline calculation and by failing to address Sheerer’s request to include those amounts.
In the published portion, the court extended the warning issued in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. about AI-generated fake citations to self-represented litigants. Although Noland addressed attorney conduct, the court emphasized that the duty to verify citations and to be truthful with the court applies equally to in propria persona litigants. Pro per status does not excuse the submission of fabricated authorities or quotes, and the rules of court apply to all litigants. Generative AI tools are no excuse for citing cases that do not exist or attributing quotes that do not appear in real opinions.
The court warned that future violations may lead to monetary sanctions under California Rules of Court rule 8.276 and to other adverse consequences, including disregard of the offending brief or referrals to other appropriate forums. The court declined to impose sanctions in this case because Panas admitted his error and because doing so would not serve the children’s best interests. The court remanded the underlying support issue with instructions to consider Panas’s full compensation, including bonuses and RSUs, when recalculating support.
Key Takeaways
- Self-represented litigants who use generative AI tools are responsible for verifying every citation and quotation in their court filings; AI hallucinations are not an excuse.
- The Court of Appeal will extend the Noland warning about AI-generated fake citations to all litigants, not just attorneys, and may impose monetary sanctions for violations.
- Child support orders must consider the full income of the obligor, including bonus income and RSU compensation, often through a Smith-Ostler provision when income fluctuates.
- Trial courts that modify existing support orders cannot simply adopt a guideline calculation that omits variable compensation that was previously included in the order.
- Reviewing courts may decline to impose sanctions for fabricated citations when the offending litigant admits the error and when the family law context, particularly the children’s best interests, weighs against it.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to the growing body of California case law dealing with AI hallucinated citations. By extending the warning to self-represented litigants, the court ensures that no one is exempt from the basic duty of candor and accuracy in court filings. With AI drafting tools becoming more accessible, family courts and other tribunals can expect to see more pro per filings with fabricated authority. Litigants and judges alike should treat unfamiliar citations skeptically and verify before relying.
For family law practitioners, the substantive holding on bonus and RSU income is important. Smith-Ostler provisions are widely used to capture variable compensation, and trial courts adopting modified orders should be careful not to drop these provisions inadvertently when adopting agency-prepared calculations. The opinion provides useful authority for opposing parties to insist on full income disclosure and consideration.