FILED Aug 18 2025, 8:55 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Kurt Williams, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Karin Kirch, Appellee-Defendant
August 18, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-SC-196 Appeal from the Marion County Small Claims Court The Honorable Kimberly J. Bacon, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49K03-2409-SC-1576
Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judges Tavitas and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 1 of 7 Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary [1] Kurt Williams appeals the small-claims court’s judgment for Karin Kirch. He
argues that the judgment is contrary to law and that the court erred in ordering
him to pay attorney’s fees. We affirm on both issues.
[2] We also take this opportunity to remind pro se litigants and attorneys of the
dangers of using artificial intelligence (AI) to conduct legal research. Generative
AI can produce citations to non-existent authorities, and we caution litigants to
verify citations before including them in briefs.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In 2024, Williams, pro se, brought a small-claims action against Kirch, his ex-
girlfriend. Williams sought the return of certain property and $8,000 in damages
“for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and expenses for having to
pursue this matter.” Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 6. The disputed property
included “a baseball cap, a bottle opener, a case of Fresca Mixed Vodka Spritz
variety pack, a coffee mug, a Gazelle electric bike and other items.” Id.
[4] At trial, Williams increased his damage claim to $10,000. He claimed that
Kirch also had a case of water that belonged to him. Kirch returned the bottle
opener, baseball cap, and mug to Williams in court. As for the bike, Williams
acknowledged that Kirch paid for it but claimed she bought it for him as a gift.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 2 of 7 Kirch testified differently. She stated that she bought the bike “as a spare” for
friends and family to ride, not just for Williams. Tr. p. 73. She also testified that
she wasn’t aware of the case of water, and she’d thrown the Fresca spritzers
away before Williams asked for them.
[5] After trial, Kirch requested $3,611.28 in attorney’s fees and expenses on the
ground that Williams’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, and
litigated in bad faith. The small-claims court entered judgment for Kirch and
ordered Williams to pay $650 of her attorney’s fees.
[6] Williams, pro se, now appeals.
Discussion and Decision I. The judgment is not contrary to law [7] Williams first contends the small-claims court erred in entering judgment for
Kirch. Because Williams had the burden of proof at trial, he is appealing from a
negative judgment and therefore must establish that the judgment is contrary to
law. Cnty. of Lake v. Pahl, 28 N.E.3d 1092, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); see also
Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976 N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (applying negative-judgment standard to small-claims action). A
judgment is contrary to law only when the evidence is without conflict and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence lead to only one
conclusion, yet the court reached a different conclusion. Pahl, 28 N.E.3d at
1099. The evidence here is not without conflict. Kirch returned the bottle
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 3 of 7 opener, baseball cap, and mug at trial, so at that point, the only items at issue
were the case of water, Fresca spritzers, and bike. Williams brought up the case
of water for the first time at trial. He testified that he’d left the water on Kirch’s
boat, but Kirch said she wasn’t aware of it and hadn’t seen it on her boat.
Williams claimed Kirch threw away the Fresca spritzers even though “she
knew [he] was asking for them,” but Kirch testified that she “got rid of them
before [he] asked for them back.” Tr. pp. 49, 61. And while Williams contended
Kirch bought the bike for him as a gift, Kirch testified that she bought it as a
“spare” for friends and family to ride and that although Williams used it, “it
was never [her] intent that he would keep the bike if [they] broke up.” Id. at 73.
Given the conflicts in the evidence, the judgment is not contrary to law.
II. The court’s award of attorney’s fees was proper [8] Williams next contends the court erred in ordering him to pay attorney’s fees.
The court may award attorney’s fees as part of the cost to the prevailing party if
it finds that the opposing party (1) brought a frivolous, unreasonable, or
groundless claim; (2) continued to litigate the action after its claim clearly
became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or (3) litigated the action in bad
faith. Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b). Because this statute is written in the disjunctive,
the court need only find that one of the grounds is satisfied to justify an award
of attorney’s fees. Kitchell v. Franklin, 26 N.E.3d 1050, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied. Where, as here, the court awards attorney’s fees without
entering findings of fact, we review the court’s legal conclusion—that a party
litigated in bad faith or pursued a frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 4 of 7 claim—de novo. S. Ind. Propane Gas, Inc. v. Caffrey, 56 N.E.3d 1216, 1220 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2016). We review the court’s decision to award attorney’s fees and the
amount thereof for an abuse of discretion. Techna-Fit, Inc. v. Fluid Transfer Prods.,
Inc., 45 N.E.3d 399, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[9] Williams argues his suit “was not frivolous, groundless nor brought in bad
faith” because Kirsch returned the property at trial and admits she threw away
the Fresca spritzers. Appellant’s Br. pp. 9, 11. But in making this argument,
Williams doesn’t acknowledge his claim for $10,000 in damages “for the pain
and suffering, emotional distress, and expenses for having to pursue this
matter.” Williams hasn’t shown that his damages claim was reasonable or well-
founded.
[10] Williams’s itemization of his damages shows the unreasonableness of his
claims. He lists “Event[s]” such as text and email exchanges, meetings with
Kirch, court dates, and “Trial prep.” See Exs. 28, 29. He values his time for
these events at $250 an hour and tacks on additional costs to each event for
“Pain and suffering” without explaining how he came to these amounts. Id.
And he doesn’t identify any authority under which he would be entitled to
recover these costs as damages. The small-claims court did not err in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED Aug 18 2025, 8:55 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Kurt Williams, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Karin Kirch, Appellee-Defendant
August 18, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-SC-196 Appeal from the Marion County Small Claims Court The Honorable Kimberly J. Bacon, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49K03-2409-SC-1576
Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judges Tavitas and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 1 of 7 Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary [1] Kurt Williams appeals the small-claims court’s judgment for Karin Kirch. He
argues that the judgment is contrary to law and that the court erred in ordering
him to pay attorney’s fees. We affirm on both issues.
[2] We also take this opportunity to remind pro se litigants and attorneys of the
dangers of using artificial intelligence (AI) to conduct legal research. Generative
AI can produce citations to non-existent authorities, and we caution litigants to
verify citations before including them in briefs.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In 2024, Williams, pro se, brought a small-claims action against Kirch, his ex-
girlfriend. Williams sought the return of certain property and $8,000 in damages
“for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and expenses for having to
pursue this matter.” Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 6. The disputed property
included “a baseball cap, a bottle opener, a case of Fresca Mixed Vodka Spritz
variety pack, a coffee mug, a Gazelle electric bike and other items.” Id.
[4] At trial, Williams increased his damage claim to $10,000. He claimed that
Kirch also had a case of water that belonged to him. Kirch returned the bottle
opener, baseball cap, and mug to Williams in court. As for the bike, Williams
acknowledged that Kirch paid for it but claimed she bought it for him as a gift.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 2 of 7 Kirch testified differently. She stated that she bought the bike “as a spare” for
friends and family to ride, not just for Williams. Tr. p. 73. She also testified that
she wasn’t aware of the case of water, and she’d thrown the Fresca spritzers
away before Williams asked for them.
[5] After trial, Kirch requested $3,611.28 in attorney’s fees and expenses on the
ground that Williams’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, and
litigated in bad faith. The small-claims court entered judgment for Kirch and
ordered Williams to pay $650 of her attorney’s fees.
[6] Williams, pro se, now appeals.
Discussion and Decision I. The judgment is not contrary to law [7] Williams first contends the small-claims court erred in entering judgment for
Kirch. Because Williams had the burden of proof at trial, he is appealing from a
negative judgment and therefore must establish that the judgment is contrary to
law. Cnty. of Lake v. Pahl, 28 N.E.3d 1092, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); see also
Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976 N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (applying negative-judgment standard to small-claims action). A
judgment is contrary to law only when the evidence is without conflict and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence lead to only one
conclusion, yet the court reached a different conclusion. Pahl, 28 N.E.3d at
1099. The evidence here is not without conflict. Kirch returned the bottle
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 3 of 7 opener, baseball cap, and mug at trial, so at that point, the only items at issue
were the case of water, Fresca spritzers, and bike. Williams brought up the case
of water for the first time at trial. He testified that he’d left the water on Kirch’s
boat, but Kirch said she wasn’t aware of it and hadn’t seen it on her boat.
Williams claimed Kirch threw away the Fresca spritzers even though “she
knew [he] was asking for them,” but Kirch testified that she “got rid of them
before [he] asked for them back.” Tr. pp. 49, 61. And while Williams contended
Kirch bought the bike for him as a gift, Kirch testified that she bought it as a
“spare” for friends and family to ride and that although Williams used it, “it
was never [her] intent that he would keep the bike if [they] broke up.” Id. at 73.
Given the conflicts in the evidence, the judgment is not contrary to law.
II. The court’s award of attorney’s fees was proper [8] Williams next contends the court erred in ordering him to pay attorney’s fees.
The court may award attorney’s fees as part of the cost to the prevailing party if
it finds that the opposing party (1) brought a frivolous, unreasonable, or
groundless claim; (2) continued to litigate the action after its claim clearly
became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or (3) litigated the action in bad
faith. Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b). Because this statute is written in the disjunctive,
the court need only find that one of the grounds is satisfied to justify an award
of attorney’s fees. Kitchell v. Franklin, 26 N.E.3d 1050, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied. Where, as here, the court awards attorney’s fees without
entering findings of fact, we review the court’s legal conclusion—that a party
litigated in bad faith or pursued a frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 4 of 7 claim—de novo. S. Ind. Propane Gas, Inc. v. Caffrey, 56 N.E.3d 1216, 1220 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2016). We review the court’s decision to award attorney’s fees and the
amount thereof for an abuse of discretion. Techna-Fit, Inc. v. Fluid Transfer Prods.,
Inc., 45 N.E.3d 399, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[9] Williams argues his suit “was not frivolous, groundless nor brought in bad
faith” because Kirsch returned the property at trial and admits she threw away
the Fresca spritzers. Appellant’s Br. pp. 9, 11. But in making this argument,
Williams doesn’t acknowledge his claim for $10,000 in damages “for the pain
and suffering, emotional distress, and expenses for having to pursue this
matter.” Williams hasn’t shown that his damages claim was reasonable or well-
founded.
[10] Williams’s itemization of his damages shows the unreasonableness of his
claims. He lists “Event[s]” such as text and email exchanges, meetings with
Kirch, court dates, and “Trial prep.” See Exs. 28, 29. He values his time for
these events at $250 an hour and tacks on additional costs to each event for
“Pain and suffering” without explaining how he came to these amounts. Id.
And he doesn’t identify any authority under which he would be entitled to
recover these costs as damages. The small-claims court did not err in
concluding that Williams’s claims were frivolous, unreasonable, and
groundless. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in ordering Williams to pay
$650 in attorney’s fees—a fraction of the $3,611.28 Kirch incurred defending
against this action.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 5 of 7 III. Warning regarding AI-generated citations [11] We must address a troubling aspect of Williams’s brief. He cites several “cases”
in his opening brief that do not exist. See Appellant’s Br. pp. 11 (“Davis v. United
States, 569 U.S. 764 (2013)”), 12 (“Bourne v. Scarborough (IN 2014)”), 17 (“In
re Marriage of Nigh, 2016 IL App (5th) 150274”). As Kirch suggests, this may
be the result of the use of “generative artificial intelligence,” which can produce
fictitious case citations. See Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v.
HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-326, 2025 WL 1511211, at *1 (S.D. Ind. May 28,
2025). Despite Kirch identifying these nonexistent citations, Williams provides
no explanation for them in his reply brief.
[12] Citations to fictitious, AI-generated authority is a growing problem nationwide.
Courts have sanctioned both attorneys and pro se litigants for including them in
briefs. See id. at *2; Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024), reh’g
denied, trans. denied. But because Kirch does not request any sanction or relief
for this conduct, we find it sufficient to admonish Williams for citing fictitious
cases in his brief. We caution attorneys and pro se litigants alike against using
AI to conduct legal research without independently verifying the citations
generated. Judges must be able to rely on the authenticity of the authorities
cited by the parties to make just decisions.
[13] Affirmed.
Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 6 of 7 APPELLANT, PRO SE Kurt Williams Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Jeremy L. Fetty Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-SC-196 | August 18, 2025 Page 7 of 7