AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY

CA Washington · Mar 3, 2026

WA / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityotherMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court sanctioned the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, awarding attorney fees and costs to the respondents. While the court explicitly noted the appellant's repeated use of fabricated and inapplicable case law, it declined to impose separate sanctions for those specific violations, opting instead to sanction the appeal as a whole.

Why the court cared
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Estate of Wallace v. Palmer, 103 Wn. App. 1064 (2000)', which the court noted does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Powers, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1006 (1994)', which the court found does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Ga. 610, 652 S.E.2d 546 (2007)', which the court indicated does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Griffith, 327 P.3d 612 (Colo. 2014)', which the court determined does not appear to exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Perez v. Pappas, 98 Wn.2d 835, 659 P.2d 475 (1983)', which the court found inapplicable to the estate/TEDRA issues raised.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Why this matter is tracked

In this probate appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment order against the appellant, Todd Carey. The court found the appeal frivolous, noting that the appellant repeatedly cited fabricated or inapplicable case law throughout his briefing. Specifically, the court identified multiple citations to non-existent cases, such as 'Estate of Wallace v. Palmer' and 'In re Estate of Powers,' as well as misrepresentations of existing cases like 'State v. Neely' and 'Perez v. Pappas.' While the court declined to impose specific sanctions for the use of fictitious citations, it sanctioned the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, awarding attorney fees and costs to the respondents.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Washington
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 3, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment, denied the appellant's requests, and granted the respondents' motion for attorney fees and sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified repeated citations to fabricated or inapplicable case law.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a superior court's summary judgment order in a probate and TEDRA matter.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Estate of Wallace v. Palmer, 103 Wn. App. 1064 (2000)', which the court noted does not appear to exist.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Powers, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1006 (1994)', which the court found does not appear to exist.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Ga. 610, 652 S.E.2d 546 (2007)', which the court indicated does not appear to exist.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Griffith, 327 P.3d 612 (Colo. 2014)', which the court determined does not appear to exist.
  6. Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Perez v. Pappas, 98 Wn.2d 835, 659 P.2d 475 (1983)', which the court found inapplicable to the estate/TEDRA issues raised.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY?
The court sanctioned the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, awarding attorney fees and costs to the respondents. While the court explicitly noted the appellant's repeated use of fabricated and inapplicable case law, it declined to impose separate sanctions for those specific violations, opting instead to sanction the appeal as a whole.
Why does In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
What does the public record establish about In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY?
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.
Which source supports this In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑KamerathCA Washington · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn re the Marriage of YoungCA Washington · Jul 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsArthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, WashingtonCA Washington (d3) · Mar 17, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsShantell Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe et al.CA 10th Cir. · Jul 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ngaruiya v. GillCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)