Victor Kholod v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 22 de julio de 2025, M.D. Pennsylvania (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. According to Kholod, “PA Partnership Inc. v. XYZ Corp, 2020” “involved the wrongful withdrawal of funds from one company's account by another, resulting in compensation to the aggrieved party.” Doc 1-2 at 4. We have been unable to locate any possible case that might fit the description given for this case. Defendant Wells 5Fargo's brief in support stated that its search for this case was fruitless as well. Doc. 5 at 20.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 2. Per Kholod, in “Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2018” “[t]he court held the company liable for failing to prevent unauthorized transactions.”Doc. 1-2 at 4. In its brief, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank points the court to Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein, P.C. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3241 EDA 2016, 2018 WL 847756 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2018). Doc. 5 at 20-21. This case, however, involved fraudulent endorsements on checks that had been withdrawn from a law firm's IOLTA accounts and business accounts. Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein, P.C., 2018 WL 847756, at *3. Neither the facts nor the legal analysis in this case supports Kholod's claim for relief. We were unable to find another case that fit the citation provided by Kholod.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 3. Kholod also cites “Chasen v. Littman, 2019” in which, according to Kholod, “[t]he court considered the issue of unauthorized use of funds between companies.”Doc. 1-2 at 4. In its brief, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank provides the following as the proper citation for this case: L. Offs. of Bruce J. Chasan, LLC v. Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP, No. 2:18CV-05399-AB, 2019 WL 1957950 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2019), aff'd, 792 F. App'x 195 (3d Cir. 2019). Doc. 5 at 21. This case does not support Kholod's claim for relief; it involved an attorney's attempt to recover a contingency fee from an out of state attorney. L. Offs. of Bruce J. Chasan, LLC, 2019 WL 1957950 at *1–2. We were unable to find another case that fit the citation provided by Kholod.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 4. Kholod states that in “Brown v. Wells Fargo, 2020” “[t]he court ruled that the bank must compensate the client $8,000 for wrongful withdrawals from their account.”Doc. 1-2 at 5. Construed liberally, this may be referring to Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C19-3041LTS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3614 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 7, 2020), or Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 01-18-01002-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7106 (Tex. App. Sep. 1, 2020). However, these cases are factually unrelated to Kholod's claim. The Northern District of Iowa Brown case concerns alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act (IDCPA) regarding a failure to make the required payments under a note and mortgage. Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C19-3041-LTS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3614, at *1. The Court of Appeals of TexasBrown case concerns a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal of a final judgment dismissing the plaintiff's garnishment suit. Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 01-18-01002-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 7106, at *1. Neither of these cases include any legal analysis that is useful for Kholod's claim.*7
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. 5. According to Kholod, in “Smith v. First National Bank, 2017” “[t]he court ordered the bank to return $5,000 to the client after evidence showed that the withdrawal was made without the client's authorization.”Doc. 1-2 at 4. Though the year is different, the closest match to this case is Smith v. First Nat'l Bank, 837 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1988). This case is not relevant to Kholod's claim; the case is an appeal of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant concerning alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).Smith, 837 F.2d at 1576–77.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 6. Kholod states that in “Jones v. PNC Bank, 2018” “the court ordered the bank to return $3,750 for unauthorized transactions made by third parties.” Doc. 1-2 at 4. We found two cases that appear to match the named parties, but neither were published in the year Kholod provides: Jones v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 10-CV-01077LHK, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92866 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2010), and Jones v. PNC Bank, N.A., 630 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D. Ill. 2022). These cases do not appear factually related to Kholod's claims. The Northern District of California Jones case involved a dismissal of the Plaintiff's allegations of violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) due to failure to state a claim. Jones, No. 10-CV-01077-LHK, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92866 at *1–2. The Northern District of Illinois Jones case granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegations of breach of contract regarding Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) as part of a retail installment contract (RIC) for a used car purchase. Jones, 630 F. Supp. 3d at 961. There is no legal analysis in either case that would be supportive of Kholod's claim for relief.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 7. Per Kholod, in “Miller v. Citizens Bank, 2019” “[t]he court found the bank liable for unauthorized withdrawals amounting to $2,600 and ordered it to compensate the client for all losses.” Doc. 1-2 at 4. We found one case matching the named parties, but not the year: Miller v. Citizens Bank, N.A., No. 23-10563, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93011 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2025), but as this 6opinion was published after Kholod filed his complaint, we assume this is not the case to which he refers. We found no other cases fitting Kholod's description.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. 8. Kholod also cites “Davis v. TD Bank, 2021” in which, according to Kholod, “[t]he court ordered the bank to pay $4,200 to the client, citing the bank's failure to prevent fraudulent actions.” Doc. 1-2 at 5. The closest possible match is Davis v. TD Bank, N.A. (In re Davis), 447 B.R. 738 (Bankr. D. Md. 2011). Again, the case name matches but the year does not. Furthermore, the subject matter is unrelated to Kholod's complaint; Davis concerns an opposition to a debtors' motion and plan for repaying creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. Davis, 447 B.R. at 740–41. There are a number of other cases where the named parties are variations of TD Bank USA, N.A. v. Davis throughout the country, none of which were published in the year Kholod cites and none of which appear to be related to Kholod's claim

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/701/VICTOR_KHOLOD_Plaintiff_v_NATIONSTAR_MORTGAGE_LLC_dba_MR_COOPER_-_WELLS_FAR.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.