Boyd v. Lee (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Mataw BOYD v. Kimberly B. LEE
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Maryland (MD)
Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Decided
2026
Boyd v. Lee, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 111263Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.UNREPORTED*Appellate Court of Maryland.Mataw BOYDv.Kimberly B. LEENo. 1685, Sept. Term, 2024|January 14, 2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Case No. C-16-FM-22-000233Nazarian, Zic, James A. Kenney III (Senior Judge, SpeciallyAssigned), JJ.OpinionZic, J.*1 This case arises from divorce proceedings in the CircuitCourt for Prince George's County. Appellant Mataw Boydtimely noted an appeal following the circuit court's dismissalof his complaint and denial of his post-hearing and post-judgment motions.1Mr. Boyd's appellate counsel, Michael A. Troy, Esq., did notfile paper copies of Mr. Boyd's brief or a record extract. Asexplained below, we exercise our discretion under MarylandRule 8-602(c)(5) and dismiss the appeal.2DISCUSSIONIn 2022, Mr. Boyd filed a complaint against Kimberly B.Lee, appellee, for a limited divorce, or in the alternative,an absolute divorce, on the ground of cruelty of treatment.Following an August 2024 merits hearing at which Mr.Boyd proceeded pro se, the circuit court denied Mr. Boyd'scomplaint, declined to consider his amended complaint—which was filed after the merits hearing concluded—anddenied his post-hearing and post-judgment motions. Mr. Boydnoted a timely appeal on October 23, 2024, and his appellatecounsel, Mr. Troy, filed a brief and “record extract” on April2, 2025.3Mr. Troy did not file eight paper copies of Mr. Boyd's briefor record extract as required by Maryland Rules 20-404(b)and 20-406(a)(2)(B).4 On April 30, 2025, this Court issued anotice to file paper copies of the brief and a record extract.Mr. Troy did not file the paper copies or otherwise respondto the notice.On October 24, 2025, this Court ordered Mr. Troy, within15 days of the entry of the order, to file the required papercopies, or show cause, in writing, why Mr. Boyd's briefand “record extract” should not be stricken, and the appealdismissed. Again, Mr. Troy did not file paper copies orotherwise respond.*2 On December 2, 2025, we ordered Mr. Troy to showcause, in writing, why he should not be sanctioned and why heshould not be referred to the Attorney Grievance Commissionfor citing to “hallucinated” and unsubstantiated case law inMr. Boyd's brief. That order stated:The Court has identified several issues with cases cited in[Mr. Boyd's] brief. Of the 14 cases cited in [his] brief, atleast [six] contain a citation irregularity:1) Md. State Bd. of Elections v. Libertarian Party of Md.,426 Md. 488 (2012), see Appellant's Br. at 3, 7, does notsupport [Mr. Boyd's] stated proposition.2) Lohrmann v. Lohrmann, 148 Md. App. 456 (2002), seeAppellant's Br. at 3, 7, does not exist.3) Townsend v. Meyer, 129 Md. App. 598 (2000), seeAppellant's Br. at 3, does not exist.4) Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119 (1977), see Appellant's Br.at 4, 7, does not support [Mr. Boyd's] stated proposition.5) Lee v. Andochick, 182 Md. App. 268 (2008), seeAppellant's Br. at 4, 7-8, does not support [Mr. Boyd's]stated proposition.
Boyd v. Lee, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.26) Bowie v. Bowie, 182 Md. App. 57 (2008), see Appellant'sBr. at 4, 8, does not exist.[5]Accordingly, it is, this 2nd day of December 2025, by theAppellate Court of Maryland, on its own initiative,ORDERED that, not later than 4:30 p.m. on December 9,2025, Mr. Troy shall show cause to this Court, in writing:(1) why he should not be sanctioned; and (2) why theCourt should not refer him to the Attorney GrievanceCommission. The written submission shall take the formof a sworn declaration and shall provide the Court witha detailed explanation as to how [Mr. Boyd's] brief wasgenerated, how counsel came to locate the apparentlyfictitious cases, and why other cases do not stand for theproposition cited; and it is furtherORDERED that [Ms. Lee] may file a written response,including any request for sanctions, within [five] days afterthe filing of Mr. Troy's response to this Order to ShowCause[.]Although Mr. Troy timely responded to the December 2, 2025order to show cause, his response did not include a certificateof service as required by Maryland Rule 1-323. Mr. Troy fileda corrected late submission shortly after this Court struck hisinitial submission. Ms. Lee did not reply.As of the filing of this opinion, Mr. Troy has not filed papercopies of Mr. Boyd's brief or a record extract or otherwiseresponded to the April 30, 2025 notice or the October 24, 2025order to show cause. Therefore, we exercise our discretionunder Maryland Rule 8-602(c)(5) and dismiss the appeal.We briefly address the evident artificial intelligence issuethat, while not dispositive here, warrants comment. Itis unacceptable for counsel (or unrepresented parties,for that matter) to submit or attempt to rely onstatements or authorities that are fabricated, hallucinated,or unsubstantiated, whether they are generated by artificialintelligence tools or “real” ones. The signature of an attorneycontained in a brief constitutes a certification that the attorneyhas read the brief, and that “to the best of the attorney'sknowledge, information, and belief there is good ground tosupport it[.]” Md. Rule 1-311(b). Thus, signing and filinga brief that contains hallucinated law may implicate theMaryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Mezuv. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 369, 374 (2025) (holding thatcounsel's submission of brief with hallucinated case lawimplicated the Rules of Professional Conduct and referringcase to the Attorney Grievance Commission). This conductcan also result in sanctions. Id. at 371-72 (declining to imposemonetary sanctions when none were requested by opposingcounsel).*3 Had we reached the questions presented to us here, wewould have held they are without merit. Mr. Boyd did nottimely request a continuance to obtain counsel before themerits hearing; thus, the contention that the circuit court erredby not continuing the merits hearing is not preserved. Md.Rule 8-131(a) (“Ordinarily, an appellate court will not decideany other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to havebeen raised in or decided by the trial court[.]”). Likewise,the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Boyd'smotion to alter or amend, in which Mr. Boyd argued that hewas improperly “required to proceed without counsel at thedivorce merits [hearing.]” We also note that Mr. Boyd didnot file a property statement as required when a party seeksequitable relief pursuant to § 8-205 of the Family Law Articleof the Maryland Code (1984, 2019 Repl. Vol.). Md. Rule9-207(a).CONCLUSIONDespite being given multiple opportunities, Mr. Troy failed tofile with this Court eight paper copies of Mr. Boyd's brief anda record extract. See Md. Rules 20-404(b) and 20-406(a)(2).We, accordingly, exercise our discretion pursuant to MarylandRule 8-602(c)(5) and dismiss the instant appeal.APPEAL DISMISSED; COSTS TO BE PAID BYAPPELLANT.All CitationsNot Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2026 WL 111263Footnotes*This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. It may be citedfor its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Maryland Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).
Boyd v. Lee, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.31Mr. Boyd phrased the questions on appeal as follows:1. Did the [c]ircuit [c]ourt err in denying [Mr. Boyd's] Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment when [Mr. Boyd] was forcedto proceed without counsel in a complex divorce trial, resulting in a fundamentally unfair proceeding?2. Did the [c]ircuit [c]ourt abuse its discretion by failing to continue the merits hearing under [Maryland] Rule 2-508(a),despite [Mr. Boyd] having only 12 days to obtain new counsel?3. Did the [c]ircuit [c]ourt err by failing to address the equitable distribution of marital property, contrary to [Maryland]Rule 9-207 and Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 8-205?2Maryland Rule 8-602(c)(5) states that this Court “may dismiss an appeal if[ ] a brief or record extract was not filed by theappellant within the time prescribed by Rule 8-502.”3The electronic document filed by Mr. Troy and labeled as Mr. Boyd's “record extract” contains only a chronological listof event entries in the case before the circuit court.4Maryland Rule 20-404(b) requires that “[i]n addition to the electronic filing, the party filing a brief shall file eight copiesof the brief in paper form.” A filing is timely filed “if (A) the electronic submission is filed within the time allowed by theapplicable Rule in Title 8, and (B) the paper copies are mailed, delivered to a third-party commercial carrier, or deliveredto the clerk's office on the next business day.” Md. Rule 20-406(a)(2).5We later identified two additional citation irregularities, which were cited in Mr. Boyd's brief but not in the table ofauthorities:1) Pickett v. Noba, Inc., 122 Md. App. 566 (1998), see Appellant's Br. at 6, does not support [Mr. Boyd's] statedproposition.2) Furr v. Furr, 199 Md. App. 1 (2011), see Appellant's Br. at 6, does not exist.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access