Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn
CA Kansas · Jan 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Kansas
- Record ID
- riverchase-v-paula-goldwyn-2026-01-16
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the default judgment and issued a formal warning regarding the appellant's submission of fabricated legal authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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 || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority.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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a district court's denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment in an eviction proceeding.
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 explicitly mentions the possibility of AI-generated hallucinated cases.
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.