Watch Oral Arguments Live
Estate of Kara B. Tornell and Preston H. Tornell, both individually and in his administrator capacity
v.
Trinity Health Corporation, Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa Corp., d/b/a MercyOne West Des Moines Medical Center; MercyOne West Des Moines; William E. Nowysz, William Nowysz, P.C.; Des Moines River Physicians, LLC; Ryan Brimeyer and The Iowa Clinic, P.C.
General case description: Plaintiff estate administrator appeals a district court order dismissing the estate’s action for wrongful death. Plaintiff contends the court erred by finding he could not represent his wife’s estate pro se, and alternatively, by denying him the opportunity to retain an attorney before it dismissed the action. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff seeks further review.
Applicant
Estate of Kara B. Tornell and Preston H. Tornell, both individually and in his administrator capacity
Resister
Trinity Health Corporation, Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa Corp., d/b/a MercyOne West Des Moines Medical Center; MercyOne West Des Moines; William E. Nowysz, William Nowysz, P.C.; Des Moines River Physicians, LLC; Ryan Brimeyer and The Iowa Clinic, P.C.
Attorney for the Applicant
S.P. DeVolder
Attorneys for the Resister
Ryan P. Tunink
Frederick T. Harris
Jennifer E. Rinden
Vincent S. Geis
Eric P. Martin
Stacie M. Codr
Jeffrey R. Kappelman
Peter R. Lapoint
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Dec 17, 2025 1:30 PM
Briefs
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer, Chicchelly, Langholz, and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. Dissent by Langholz, J. (25 pages)
A husband appeals the dismissal of his petition against medical providers for the wrongful death of his wife. Although he is not an attorney, he represented himself as an individual and as the administrator of the estate throughout the district court proceedings, which the court found to be the unauthorized practice of law and dismissed without prejudice. On appeal, the husband contends he could proceed pro se because his wife died without a will and he was the sole beneficiary of her estate. Short of that, he contends the district court should have granted his motion to amend his pleading. OPINION HOLDS: The sole-beneficiary argument was not preserved for appeal. Dismissal was proper because the wrongful death claims belonged to the estate, and nothing in Iowa law allows an administrator to bring those claims pro se. The husband engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and his petition was void and a legal nullity. Thus, we affirm the dismissal of his action without prejudice. DISSENT ASSERTS: The district court’s dismissal of this wrongful-death suit without first giving the improperly represented parties the chance to hire a lawyer flouts precedent and the principles underlying our unauthorized-practice-of-law doctrine. And this error is properly preserved for our review. So I would reverse the dismissal and remand for the district court to enter an order dismissing the case only if no lawyer appears to represent the plaintiffs within thirty days.