Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn
CA Kansas · Jan 16, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Kansas Court of Appeals issued a warning to a pro se litigant for submitting fabricated and mischaracterized case law in her appellate brief. The court attributed these errors to the use of artificial intelligence, noting that such conduct wastes judicial resources and hinders the court's ability to address the merits of the case.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball, No. 108,817 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2014),' which the opinion states does not exist and treats as a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. White, No. 108,817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)' using the same docket number as the fabricated Ball citation; court flagged the mismatch and nonexistence/relevance. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant listed 'Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue, No. 119,429 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018),' which the opinion indicates appears not to exist with that docket and is a fabricated or incorrect citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Wiles v. American Family Insurance Co., 302 Kan. ___, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' and described it as reversing a default; court explained the citation is incorrect/mischaracterized and actually corresponds to a different opinion (Mashaney). || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' but mischaracterized its holding as reversing a default judgment; court explained Mashaney involved malpractice/judgment on the pleadings, not a default reversal.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal from a default judgment of eviction, the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed a pro se appellant's submission of multiple fabricated and mischaracterized legal citations. The court identified that the appellant relied on non-existent cases, such as 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball,' and misrepresented the holdings of actual cases like 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services.' The court noted that these errors likely stemmed from the use of artificial intelligence tools. While the majority affirmed the lower court's default judgment due to inadequate briefing and procedural failures, it explicitly highlighted the problematic nature of submitting AI-generated fake authority. The court warned that such practices waste judicial resources and undermine the integrity of the appellate process, effectively issuing a formal warning regarding the appellant's conduct.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly mentions the possibility of AI-generated hallucinated cases.
Appellate review of a district court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment in an eviction proceeding.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball, No. 108,817 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2014),' which the opinion states does not exist and treats as a fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. White, No. 108,817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)' using the same docket number as the fabricated Ball citation; court flagged the mismatch and nonexistence/relevance.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant listed 'Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue, No. 119,429 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018),' which the opinion indicates appears not to exist with that docket and is a fabricated or incorrect citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Wiles v. American Family Insurance Co., 302 Kan. ___, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' and described it as reversing a default; court explained the citation is incorrect/mischaracterized and actually corresponds to a different opinion (Mashaney).
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' but mischaracterized its holding as reversing a default judgment; court explained Mashaney involved malpractice/judgment on the pleadings, not a default reversal.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn?
- The Kansas Court of Appeals issued a warning to a pro se litigant for submitting fabricated and mischaracterized case law in her appellate brief. The court attributed these errors to the use of artificial intelligence, noting that such conduct wastes judicial resources and hinders the court's ability to address the merits of the case.
- Why does Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn?
- 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 Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn 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.