Background
In July 2016, Margaret Willhoite sought treatment at Genesis Medical Center following a motor vehicle accident. An X-ray revealed a nodule in her left lung, and her records noted the need for a follow-up CT scan—but none was ordered. Nearly two years later, in March 2018, a CT scan performed at a different facility after a femur fracture revealed widespread tumors in her lung, femur, adrenal gland, and scapula. She was diagnosed with cancer and died in May 2018. Her family filed a wrongful-death medical malpractice suit in January 2020 against Genesis and several of her treating providers, alleging that the failure to follow up on the lung nodule caused her death.
To satisfy Iowa Code section 147.140, the plaintiffs timely served certificate of merit affidavits on all defendants in early 2020. The certificates were signed by the plaintiffs’ experts but contained no notary stamp, jurat, or statement that they were signed under penalty of perjury. In May 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court issued Miller v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., holding that an unsworn expert letter does not satisfy section 147.140’s “affidavit” requirement. Genesis promptly moved to dismiss on the ground that the 2020 certificates were likewise deficient. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the suit with prejudice on July 30, 2024.
On appeal, a separate threshold issue arose: Patrick Willhoite, a non-attorney serving as both executor of his father Michael’s estate and administrator of his mother Margaret’s estate, personally signed and filed the initial notice of appeal on behalf of the estates. Genesis moved to dismiss the estates’ appeal, arguing that Patrick’s filings constituted unauthorized practice of law and should be treated as nullities.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously denied Genesis’s motion to dismiss the estates’ appeal. Applying its recent decision in Estate of Tornell v. Trinity Health Corp., the court agreed that a non-attorney executor or administrator engages in unauthorized practice of law by filing appellate documents on behalf of an estate. However, the court declined to treat Patrick’s notices of appeal as nullities. Because the estates had been continuously represented by licensed counsel throughout the litigation—attorneys from two firms who never formally withdrew—and because attorney Matthew Sease appeared for all plaintiffs within a month of the appeal being filed and handled all subsequent briefing, the twin goals of halting unauthorized practice and permitting merits resolution had already been achieved without dismissal.
On the merits, the court divided evenly 3–3. Justices Christensen, McDonald, and May would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding the 2020 certificates failed to satisfy section 147.140’s affidavit requirement under Miller. Justices Mansfield, Oxley, and McDermott would have reversed. Because no majority could be formed, the district court’s judgment of dismissal was affirmed by operation of law under Iowa Code section 602.4107. Justice Waterman took no part in the case.
Key Takeaways
- A non-attorney executor or administrator commits unauthorized practice of law by filing a notice of appeal on behalf of an estate, but the remedy is not automatic dismissal — courts should allow a reasonable opportunity for licensed counsel to appear and cure the defect.
- The Iowa Supreme Court’s 3-3 deadlock on whether the plaintiffs’ 2020 certificate of merit affidavits — signed by experts but lacking a notary stamp, jurat, or penalty-of-perjury declaration — satisfied Iowa Code section 147.140 leaves the law unsettled on that precise factual scenario post-Miller.
- Under Iowa Code section 602.4107, an evenly divided Iowa Supreme Court results in affirmance of the lower court’s judgment by operation of law, with no binding precedent established on the merits question.
- Attorneys who appear in district court remain counsel of record on appeal unless they formally withdraw under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.152; their continued representation can cure jurisdictional defects caused by a client’s pro se filings.
Why It Matters
This decision is a significant cautionary tale for plaintiffs’ medical malpractice counsel in Iowa. Following Miller, certificates of merit affidavits must be properly sworn — signed before a notary or expressly declared under penalty of perjury — or risk dismissal with prejudice, potentially years into litigation. The Willhoite plaintiffs’ attempt to retroactively shore up their 2020 certificates by having experts sign new penalty-of-perjury statements failed to save the case, and the 3-3 split means no clear guidance on whether such curative steps might suffice in different circumstances.
The court’s treatment of the unauthorized-practice issue also carries practical importance for estate litigation. By extending Tornell’s remedial framework to appellate filings, the court signals that Iowa courts will prefer to permit merits resolution over technical dismissal where counsel can quickly step in — but practitioners should ensure that estate representatives understand they cannot file court documents without a licensed attorney, and that withdrawal procedures must be formally followed to avoid ambiguity about who remains counsel of record.