In the Matter of the Estate of Anthony J. Cetta, Deceased.

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-2102
Filed October 21, 2026
_______________
In the Matter of the Estate of Anthony J. 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.
Timothy D. Roberts of Anderson, Roberts, Porth, Wallace, Stewart &
Werner LLP, Burlington, and Laura Krehbiel, Donnellson,
attorneys for appellee.
_______________
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 dismissal of her petitions challenging the
probate of Anthony Cetta’s will. Upon our review, we affirm.
To provide context for our resolution of Cruz’s claims on appeal, we
set forth the relevant provisions of her mother Trudith Cetta’s will, which
we also discuss in another opinion filed today, In re Estate of Cetta, No. 25-
1831, 2026 WL ___ (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2026). 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 died on July 23, 2024. She was survived by her husband,
Anthony. Articles II, III, and IV of Anthony’s will mirrored Trudith’s but for
corresponding references to his son, daughters, step-grandchildren, and
sister. On November 12, 2024, Anthony executed a first codicil to his will,
which stated in relevant part:
1. I hereby delete Article IV of my Last Will and Testament dated
March 5, 2014 and substitute the following in its place:
ARTICLE IV – RESIDUARY. I give, devise, and bequeath the
rest, residue, and remainder of my estate to my children as follows:
(A) Fifty per cent (5o%) to my daughter Gina Marie Cetta or to her
heirs at law, per stirpes;
(B) Twenty-five per cent (25%) to my son Anthony Thomas Cetta
or to his heirs at law, per stirpes; and

4
(C) Twenty-five per cent (25%) to my daughter Stephanie Ann
Poole, or to her heirs at law, per stirpes.
2. I hereby delete Article VI of my Last Will and Testament dated
March 5, 2014 in its entirety.
Anthony died on January 31, 2025. His will and codicil were admitted
to probate in March 2025, and his sister, Judith, was appointed executor.
Judith thereafter resigned as executor, and the district court appointed Two
Rivers Bank & Trust as substitute executor.
In June, Cruz filed a “caveat to probate of will,” challenging “the
admission of the purported will” on various grounds.1 Cruz also filed a
“petition to assert equitable interest in real property of estate.” On July 3,
2025, the district court entered an order finding that “no filing fee was paid”
for either filing. The court further noted: “A filing fee is due before any of the
above referenced filings will be considered as a petition to set aside or contest
the will. After payment of the required filing fees, the petitioners must
comply with the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Over the next few months, Cruz filed a myriad of pleadings with the
court, including:
 Petition to return property to rightful heirs, with an attached
itemized list of property to return and witness declarations;
 Motion to stay distribution and halt auction of estate property;
Emergency motion to stay auction and transfer of property;
1 Cruz’s children, Bella Cruz and Kane Cruz, filed similar challenges. However,
neither Bella nor Kane challenged the district court’s order dismissing the petitions, so
their claims are not at issue in this appeal.

5
 Request for expedited consideration;
 Objection to affidavit of heirship;
 Motion to review all evidence and rule on slayer statute;
 Notice of continuing attempts at good faith and demand for
preservation of estate assets;
 Demand for preservation of estate assets and notice of potential
liability;
 Motion to stay further estate liquidation pending final
resolution and proposed order granting such motion; and
 Amended motion for temporary injunction, with supporting
affidavit and proposed order.
In August, the estate filed a resistance to Cruz’s motions. Over the
next few weeks, Cruz then filed a motion to compel accounting of attorney
fees and executor compensation; a motion to produce records of loans,
advances, and gifts from estate assets; a request to review report and
inventory; and other pleadings. The district court filed an order denying
Cruz’s motions or finding the motions “moot.” The court also denied what
it deemed as Cruz’s request for a temporary injunction.2 Cruz continued to
file additional motions.
In October, the estate filed a motion to dismiss, maintaining Cruz
failed to properly serve notice of her original petitions challenging Anthony’s
2 We affirmed the court’s order denying Cruz’s request for temporary injunction
in another opinion filed today, In re Estate of Cetta, No. 25-1235, 2026 WL ___ (Iowa Ct.
App. Oct. 21, 2026).

6
will pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5). See Iowa Code
§ 633.311 (2025) (“An action objecting to the probate of a proffered will, or
to set aside a will, is triable in the probate court as an action at law, and the
rules of civil procedure governing law actions, including demand for jury
trial, shall be applicable thereto.”); Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302(5) (“If service of the
original notice is not made upon the defendant, respondent, or other party to
be served within 90 days after filing the petition, the court, upon motion or
its own initiative after notice to the party filing the petition, shall dismiss the
action without prejudice as to that defendant, respondent, or other party to
be served or direct an alternate time or manner of service. If the party filing
the papers shows good cause for the failure of service, the court shall extend
the time for service for an appropriate period.”). The estate further claimed
that because more than ninety days had passed since Cruz’s filings, the
petitions should be dismissed. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302(5).
On November 21, 2025, over Cruz’s resistance, the district court
granted the estate’s motion to dismiss. The court stated, in relevant part:
While the filings at question are not all clearly named, they are all
clearly actions objecting to the probate of Anthony Cetta’s will or
attempting to set aside Anthony Cetta’s will. Accordingly, they are actions
at law that are subject to Iowa Code chapter 633 and the Iowa Rules of Civil
Procedure. It is equally clear that the filings were never served with an
original notice on the Estate, its executor, or any other interested parties.
The file shows that four of the pleadings, the three documents titled caveat
to probate of will and the petition to return property to rightful heirs were
mailed to the Estate’s executor and attorney. But mailing is not the correct
manner under the Rules of Civil Procedure to serve a petition and original
notice. Attempts must first be made at personal service, and only if such
service is unsuccessful may a party petition the court for permission to use
an alternative method of service, such as mailing. In this matter, there was
no such permission.

7
The petitioners may attempt to argue that they are not trained
attorneys, and their actions should not fail because of legal technicalities.
All parties, whether licensed attorneys or pro se individuals, are bound by
the Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of the Rules is to create a level
playing field where all parties are able to see how a lawsuit is to proceed,
and no exception is made for pro se litigants. Further, the court put the
petitioners on notice on July 3, 2025 that they “must comply with the Iowa
Rules of Civil Procedure.” It is clear that they have not, and for this reason
the Court does find that the filings at question shall be dismissed.
Cruz appeals. She does not dispute that she failed to comply with Iowa
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5) to serve her petition and original notice.
Instead, she maintains that she “served the fiduciary and counsel of record
through the court’s electronic filing system and by mail.” Cruz raises the
following claims: (1) “the district court erred by applying civil original-notice
rules without first addressing the estate’s failure to serve interested persons
and without identifying any proper party entitled to service,”3 (2) “the July
3, 2025 order did not provide notice of any specific service obligation and
cannot support dismissal,” (3) “the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing without identifying any service defect or allowing cure, despite
actual notice,” and (4) “the dismissal resulted in material prejudice and
cannot be deemed harmless error.”
Upon reviewing the record and the district court’s order, as well as the
parties’ briefs on appeal,4 we approve the reasons for and conclusions of the
3 Insofar as Cruz’s claim insinuates that she is an interested party in this case, that
issue was not before the district at the time it issued the ruling on appeal. However, we
observe that the district court later determined Cruz “is not an interested party” and
therefore lacks standing in this case. Cruz appealed from that ruling, as well as the court’s
subsequent order denying her motion to reconsider. The supreme court treated Cruz’s
appeal as interlocutory and denied it.
4 We observe that some of the citations in Cruz’s brief on appeal do not contain
the holdings for which Cruz has cited. “We again stress that self-represented litigants and

8
district court’s dismissal order by memorandum opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.
21.26(1)(d), (e).
AFFIRMED.
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).