In the Matter of the Estate of Trudith V. Cetta, Deceased

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-1831
Filed October 21, 2026
_______________
In the Matter of the Estate of Trudith V. Cetta, Deceased
Erin Michelle Cruz,
Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County,
The Honorable Joshua P. Schier, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Erin Cruz, Columbus, Indiana, self-represented appellant.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Telleen, S.J.
Opinion by Schumacher, J.

2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Erin Cruz appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to
compel appointment of a fiduciary for her mother’s estate. Because Cruz has
waived her claims on appeal, we affirm the district court’s order.
Trudith Cetta died on July 23, 2024. Trudith’s will, dated March 5,
2014, provided in part:
ARTICLE II
I direct my Executor to dispose of certain items of tangible personal
property in accordance with a written list of items of tangible personal
property and the intended distributees of those items. This written list was
prepared by me pursuant to Iowa Code section 633.276 and is kept separate
from my original Last Will and Testament and I intend it to be binding
upon my Executor hereinafter named. I direct that my Executor distribute
the items of personal property to the distributees specified.
ARTICLE III
I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue, and remainder
of my estate absolutely in fee simple to my husband, Anthony Joseph
Cetta, if he survives me.
ARTICLE IV
In the event my husband, Anthony Joseph Cetta, does not survive
me, then I direct that all of the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate be
liquidated and divided into four equal shares. I give, devise and bequeath
one share to my stepson, Anthony Thomas Cetta of North Liberty, Iowa;
one share to my stepdaughter, Gina Marie Cetta of North Liberty, Iowa;
one share to my stepdaughter, Stephanie Ann Poole of North Liberty,
Iowa; and one share to be divided equally between my two grandchildren,
Bella R. Cruz, date of birth January 22, 2004, and Kane Owen Cruz, date
of birth April 8, 2006, both of Keokuk, Iowa. These bequests shall be per
stirpes and not per capita.

3
ARTICLE V
I realize my daughter, Erin Michelle Cruz, is not receiving anything
from my estate. That is my intention. After Erin became an adult and left
my home, she has continually asked for, and received, financial assistance
from me, which amounts to a number of significant gifts of financial
assistance, during my lifetime. In addition, Erin also received a great
amount of financial assistance from my mother, her grandmother, while
her grandmother was living. I discovered the extent of the financial
assistance that Erin received from my mother after she had died and I was
executor of her estate. Her estate was significantly reduced due to the
“loans” that were never repaid by Erin. Last, but not least, Erin has been
mentally and physically abusive.
ARTICLE VI
I nominate and appoint my husband, Anthony Joseph Cetta, as
Executor of my estate and I exempt him from furnishing any bond and
provide that he may sell any asset of my estate without order of Court. If
he is either unwilling, or unable, to serve, then I nominate and appoint my
sister-in-law, Judith Claire Cetta, of Tucson, Arizona, as substitute
executor and exempt her from furnishing any bond and provide that she
may sell any asset of my estate without order of Court.
Trudith was survived by her husband, Anthony, who died on January
31, 2025. Anthony’s will was admitted to probate in March 2025. Our
opinions relating to appeals filed by Trudith’s daughter, Erin Cruz, in
Anthony’s probate case include In re Estate of Cetta, No. 25-1235, 2026 WL
___ (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2026), and In re Estate of Cetta, No. 25-2102,
2026 WL ___ (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2026), which are also filed today.
On September 16, 2025, Cruz filed a petition in probate seeking
intestate administration of Trudith’s estate. Cruz alleged, “No valid will [for
Trudith] can be reliably established due to tampering, inconsistent versions,
and lack of chain of custody.” Cruz requested “that the Court appoint her as
Administrator of the Estate.” She also filed a motion to remove Judith Cetta
as executor of Trudith’s estate.

4
The next day, the district court entered the following order:
Petitioner requests the court appoint her the administrator of this
estate and allow the matter to proceed as though decedent died intestate.
The court is aware of a Will filed on behalf of this decedent in [Anthony’s
probate case]. However, Petitioner does not wish to file that document in
this case.
The court notes Petitioner is not an Iowa resident. Pursuant to
[Iowa Code section] 633.64 [(2025),] she will need to provide the court
with the name and address, including email address, of an Iowa resident
who will agree to act as a co-administrator. The court will review the
Petition once this is accomplished.
Cruz then filed a motion stating she was “willing to serve as co-
administrator of the estate, in a limited capacity, in order to assist with the
identification, preservation, and proper administration of estate assets,” but
she did not “seek sole appointment or sole fiduciary authority.” Cruz further
stated she had “no such individual willing or available” to serve as co-
administrator. She requested the court “appoint a qualified, disinterested
fiduciary to serve as co-administrator, or in the alternative, to serve as the
sole administrator of the estate if the Court declines to appoint co-
administrators.”1
The court filed a record entry regarding Cruz’s motion, which noted
in part that Cruz “indicat[es] she is willing to serve as a co-administrator,”
but she “did not identify or provide information about an Iowa resident who
is qualified and willing to serve as co-administrator,” as previously directed
by the court. As a result, the court stated it would “take no action” on Cruz’s
motion.
1 We observe Cruz’s requests conflict in part. The court interpreted Cruz’s filing
only in relation to her request to serve as co-administrator of the estate, “in a limited
capacity,” and we do the same.

5
Cruz then filed a motion “to compel appointment of fiduciary and for
clarification of court directions.” Cruz maintained the court “must appoint a
fiduciary to prevent prejudice and ensure compliance with statutory duties
of preservation, inventory, and notice.” Cruz further alleged that the court’s
prior order “implies action should proceed, but without an appointed
fiduciary, [Cruz] cannot perform the duties required by law.” Cruz further
filed a “notice of non-compliance and request for immediate ruling or
hearing,” stating in part that “[t]he continued inaction of the Court
prevents the lawful administration of this estate and is causing ongoing
prejudice to [Cruz] and all heirs of the decedent.”
The court entered the following order:
The Petitioner has filed a Motion to Compel Appointment of
Fiduciary and for Clarification of Court Directions, as well as a Notice of
Non-Compliance and Request for Immediate Ruling or Hearing. The
Petitioner demands that the Court “either appoint a neutral fiduciary or
provide clear procedural guidance.”
The Court is not allowed to offer legal advice. The Court does not
seek out fiduciaries. Simply put, it is not the Court’s job to see to the
administration of the estate, but rather to ensure that those who are
administering the estate are doing [so] properly. The Court will not pick a
fiduciary for the Petitioner.
Cruz appeals. She raises the following claims: (1) “the district court
erred as a matter of law by refusing to exercise supervisory authority, leaving
the estate unguarded,” (2) “the district court abused its discretion by
allowing the estate to remain unguarded despite known risk of harm,” and
(3) “leaving the estate unguarded resulted in ongoing and irreparable harm,
requiring appellate intervention.” (cleaned up).
To support her contentions, Cruz cites Iowa Code section 633.40—
which sets forth notice requirements for probate proceedings—a provision

6
irrelevant to the issues on appeal. Cruz also cites In re Guardianship of
Stewart, 369 N.W.2d 820, 824 (Iowa 1985), superseded by statute as recognized
in, In re Guardianship of L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882, 898 (Iowa 2022), to support
her claim that the court’s “failure to act created foreseeable risk of harm and
undermined the court’s equitable role in probate administration.” But
Stewart involved a dispute between a father and maternal grandparents over
the custody of a child, and it does not contain the holding for which Cruz has
cited. See 369 N.W.2d at 822–25. Finally, Cruz cites two cases to support
general statements regarding our standard of review, one of which appears to
be hallucinated or otherwise incorrect. “We again stress that self-represented
litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the
authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertations when preparing
appellate court filings.” Goma v. Hundley, No. 25-0619, 2026 WL 892643, at
*8 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026) (cleaned up).
Because Cruz has cited no authority to support her claims, she has
waived them. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3) (“Failure to cite authority
in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”); In re Est. of
Peterson, No. 24-1472, 2025 WL 3165925, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 13,
2025) (noting “a party forfeits an issue on appeal when the party fails to make
more than a perfunctory argument in support of the issue”). Accordingly, we
affirm the order of the district court.
AFFIRMED.