Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Hanson on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.

Court
D. Colorado
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-11-28
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Struck Filing; Order for future filings to include certificate; Required contact with the Federal Pro Se Clinic
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

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. || 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). || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cites In re Medina, 2012 WL 1368983 (Bankr. D. Colo.); court found no results for that citation. || 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. || Misrepresented: 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. || Misrepresented: 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. || Misrepresented: 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. || Fabricated: 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. || Fabricated: 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. || Fabricated: 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. || Misrepresented: 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. || False Quotes: Case Law | Motion to Disqualify quotes material attributed to Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., but the quoted material is not present in that opinion.

Details

Order to Show Cause is here.

Sanction teardown · D. Colorado, USA · 2025-11-28

Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.

What happened

In D. Colorado, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • 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.
  • 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).
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Complaint cites In re Medina, 2012 WL 1368983 (Bankr. D. Colo.); court found no results for that citation.
  • 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.
  • Misrepresented (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.
  • Misrepresented (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.
  • Misrepresented (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.
  • Fabricated (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.
  • Fabricated (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.
  • Fabricated (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.
  • Misrepresented (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.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Motion to Disqualify quotes material attributed to Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., but the quoted material is not present in that opinion.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Struck Filing; Order for future filings to include certificate; Required contact with the Federal Pro Se Clinic

Additional detail

Order to Show Cause is here.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/895/Hanson_v._Nest_Home_Lending_USA_17_October_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/895/Hanson_v._Nest_Home_Lending_USA_17_October_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template