AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesLandmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus
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 81/100. 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

Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

CA Kansas · Feb 13, 2026

KS / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontractappellateNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment after determining that the pro se appellant relied on three nonexistent legal authorities. Because the appellant failed to provide valid legal support or a sufficient record to establish error, the court deemed his arguments waived and abandoned.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Why this matter is tracked

In a residential lease dispute, the pro se appellant, Lonnie LuPardus, appealed a district court judgment awarding damages to the landlord. On appeal, LuPardus argued that his lease obligations terminated upon eviction and cited three specific cases—"Edwards v. Scholtzs," "Meadors v. Feltor," and "Wilson v. Gutschenritter"—to support his position. The Kansas Court of Appeals determined that none of these cited cases exist in Kansas appellate reports and that no Kansas law supports the appellant's theory of retroactive lease termination. Consequently, the court found that the appellant failed to support his legal arguments with pertinent authority. The appellate court deemed these arguments waived or abandoned and affirmed the district court's judgment, noting the appellant's failure to designate a sufficient record for review.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope
Explore KSOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Kansas
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, ruling that the appellant's arguments were waived due to reliance on nonexistent authority and failure to provide an adequate record.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source does not name a tool; the hallucination is inferred from the nature of the citations.

Procedural posture

Appeal from a Johnson District Court bench trial judgment; affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment after determining that the pro se appellant relied on three nonexistent legal authorities. Because the appellant failed to provide valid legal support or a sufficient record to establish error, the court deemed his arguments waived and abandoned.
Why does Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.
What does the public record establish about Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?
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 Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus 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.

Kendall E. Scheer v. Scheer Farms, LLCCA Kansas · Jun 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRiverchase v. Paula GoldwynCA Kansas · Jan 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRoosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit UnionD. Kansas · Feb 25, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsWRI Summit REIT LP v. KuerschnerCA Arizona (1d) · Aug 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)First Community Credit Union v. Ashley SmithCA Wisconsin · Jul 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ally Bank v. Serge N. NgouambeCA Minnesota · Jul 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)