Nisland Asset Inv., LLC v. Gericke, No. 25-0659 (Jan. 26, 2023)

Case details
Full caption
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Carissa Ann Gericke
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Iowa (IA)
Court
Iowa Supreme Court
Decided
Jan. 26, 2023
Disposition
Affirmed
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Carissa Ann..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1162553Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: FINAL PUBLICATION DECISION PENDINGCourt of Appeals of Iowa.Nisland Asset Investment,LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Carissa Ann Gericke, Spouse of CarissaAnn Gericke, if any, and Carissa AnnGericke, as Trustee of the CarissaAnn Gericke Trust U/A Dated January26, 2023, Defendants–Appellants.No. 25-0659|Filed April 29, 2026Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County,The Honorable Richard D. Stochl, Judge.AFFIRMEDAttorneys and Law FirmsCarissa Ann Gericke, Cedar Rapids, self-representedappellant.Alex S. Berenstein and Zachary T. Greder of Crary Huff P.C.,Sioux City, attorneys for appellee.Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., andBadding and Langholz, JJ.OpinionOpinion by Langholz, J.*1 Carissa Gericke appeals the district court's order grantingsummary judgment to Nisland Asset Investment, LLC on itspetition to quiet title to a parcel of real estate that it obtainedafter a prior foreclosure proceeding. The gist of Gericke'sclaims of error is that there were various defects in thatforeclosure proceeding that she should be able to challengefor the first time in this quiet-title proceeding. She also makesstray references to the denial of her jury demand and toequitable tolling of her affirmative defenses.But we cannot consider the merits of Gericke's argumentsbecause she has failed to support any of them with legalauthority as required by our rules of appellate procedure.See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a) (8) (requiring for each issue“[a]n argument containing the appellant's contentions and thereasons for them with citations to the authorities relied on”and warning that “[f ]ailure to cite authority in support of anissue may be deemed waiver of that issue”). To the contrary,Gericke repeatedly cited two cases that do not exist. And shecited a third case that does exist but has nothing to do with theproposition for which she cites it or any issue in this case. Itthus appears likely that she misused an artificial intelligencetool when preparing her brief.We recognize that Gericke is representing herself. “But we donot have a double standard for those represented by counseland those who are unrepresented—we expect all to followour procedures.” Locher & Davis, PLC v. Ruth F. WollerRevocable Tr., No. 23-0944, 2024 WL 4761531, at *4 (IowaCt. App. Nov. 13, 2024). And we have repeatedly “stress[ed]that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a dutyto independently verify the authenticity and veracity of allsources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligencetools to prepare trial or appellate court filings.” Luke v. IowaDep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 29 N.W.3d 635, 636 (IowaCt. App. 2025); see also In re W.G., No. 25-1916, 2026 WL892837, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026); Goma v.Hundley, No. 25-0619, 2026 WL 892643, at *8 (Iowa Ct.App. Apr. 1, 2026); In re R.A., 24-1629, 2025 WL 2793560,at *2–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025); Turner v. Garrels, No.24-0895, 2025 WL 2537738, at *1 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep.4, 2025).To be sure, the citation of a nonexistent case or a case thatdoes not stand for the proposition for which it is cited doesnot always result in waiver of the issue. See, e.g., Luke, 29N.W.3d at 635–36. But here, Gericke's arguments are so scantthat nothing remains for us to consider without taking onthe role of Gericke's advocate and creating her arguments onher behalf. This we cannot do. See Ronnfeldt v. Shelby Cnty.Chris A. Myrtue Mem'l Hosp., 984 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Iowa2023) (“We generally will not do a party's work for them,particularly if that requires us to assume a partisan role andundertake the party's research and advocacy.” (cleaned up));Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (refusingto “speculate on the arguments [the appellant] might havemade and then search for legal authority and comb the recordfor facts to support such arguments” and thus holding that
Nisland Asset Investment, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Carissa Ann..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2issue was not “properly presented for [the court's] review andconsideration”).*2 And so, we affirm the district court's grant of summaryjudgment to Nisland Asset Investment, LLC.AFFIRMED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1162553 (Table)End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access