In re: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick
S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy) · Nov 24, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy)
- Record ID
- in-re-marguerite-latete-kilpatrick-2025-11-24
- Observed outcome
- The Court denied the debtor's motions and scheduled a hearing to address potential sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c).
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court denied the debtor's emergency motion for stay and motion to withdraw the reference, finding them moot and frivolous. The Court explicitly flagged the debtor's use of AI to generate fabricated and misapplied legal citations as a basis for ongoing Rule 9011(c) sanction proceedings.
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor relied on In re Pan Am Corp., 159 B.R. 396, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) for the proposition that status quo should be maintained pending withdrawal; Court found that Pan Am addressed Rule 54(b) and dismissal of appeals, not withdrawal/stay, so the authority was misapplied.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bankruptcy
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying emergency motion for stay and motion to withdraw the reference, with ongoing jurisdiction reserved for Rule 9011(c) sanction proceedings.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The Court identified ChatGPT as a likely tool used by the debtor.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.