Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.
- Party
- Pro Se Litigant
- AI Tool
- Unidentified
Hallucinated Content
Fabricated
- Case Law
Complaint cites Reagan v. Investors Mtg. Co., 977 P.2d 299 (Colo. App. 1999); court found no such case (Westlaw returns unrelated State v. Maier).
- Case Law
Complaint cites In re Medina, 2012 WL 1368983 (Bankr. D. Colo.); court found no results for that citation.
- Case Law
Response cites First Nat’l Bank of Greeley v. Conway, 34 Colo. 372, 83 P. 361 (1905); court found that citation does not exist.
- Case Law
Response cites Hendricks v. Bank of America, N.A., 408 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App. 2013); court found no such Texas Court of Appeals decision and noted the Ninth Circuit Hendricks decision cited does not support Plaintiffs' proposition.
- Case Law
Response cites Goodman v. Heritage Savings & Loan Ass’n, 390 P.2d 712 (Colo. 1964); court determined this case does not exist as cited.
False Quotes
- Case Law
Motion to Disqualify quotes language attributed to Weeks v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, but the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
- Case Law
Motion to Disqualify quotes material attributed to Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., but the quoted material is not present in that opinion.
Misrepresented
- Case Law
Motion cites People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Hively, 336 P.2d 721 (1959) for a proposition about declaratory relief and ownership clarity that the case does not establish.
- Case Law
Motion to Remand attributes the parenthetical proposition about remandability of quiet title/foreclosure disputes to Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., but Easton did not address that issue.
- Case Law
Motion for Declaratory Judgment cites Koon v. Barmettler, 301 P.2d 713 (1956) for the proposition that declaratory judgment is appropriate to resolve quiet title, but Koon did not address that subject.
- Legal Norm
Response cites Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-41-201 to support a joinder rule for quiet title actions; the cited statute actually pertains to homestead exemptions and is unrelated.
- Case Law
Plaintiffs cite In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) for a proposition about the National Bank Act and recording requirements; the opinion exists but does not discuss the National Bank Act or recording requirements as Plaintiffs claim.
Outcome
Notes
Order to Show Cause is here.
Data from Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database.