In Re Elijah and Mary Stiny Trusts

Filing 395

ORDER denying 381 and 382 motions to reconsider; Trustee's further status report on back-rent issues due by 12/20/2024; any further report from the Stiny grandchildren to the trustee about undervaluation/amended returns issues due by the same date; and the trustee must also report to the Court on that potential issue in his next status report after the first of the year. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/25/2024. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

IN RE ELIJAH AND MARY
STINY TRUSTS

No. 3:19 -cv-346-DPM
ORDER

The Stiny grandchildren have filed separate Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motions, asking the Court to alter or amend its 11 September 2024

Order, Doc. 378. Eli Stiny filed one of these motions, Andrew and

Alexis Stiny the other. The trustee has responded. He has also filed the

requested status report on the back-rent issue, which is intertwined
with these new motions. The Court will address it in this Order, too.
First, the September Order was not a final Judgment. The Court

entered Judgment in April 2024, Doc. 349. And after the Court denied
the Stiny grandchildren's motion to alter or amend it, Eli appealed.

(There is also an unrelated pending appeal on the "Della Moore share"
issue.) The September Order was instead simply a decision on some
trust administration issues. They continue. And this Court retains
jurisdiction over them. Doc. 349 at 1-2.
Second, in substance, the Stiny grandchildren seek reconsideration

of the Court's decision about their proposed assignment of all potential
trust claims against any person or entity that is not a member of the

extended Stiny and Moore families.

Motions to reconsider are

disfavored because they tend to bog down the case. Elder-Keep v.
Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 985 (8th Cir. 2006).

But, in extraordinary

circumstances, such as those listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a Court can

revisit prior rulings.

Third, Eli's motion covers much ground.

He disagrees with

almost all the Court's rulings across the last four years. The Court
understands his views. But Eli's deep disagreement with those rulings
does not support reconsideration on the potential assignment issue.
His pending appeal is the place to address his many concerns about this

Court's handling of this case.

Eli also challenges the trustee's

impartiality and decision making. Like all of us, Perkins is an imperfect
human being; but, as the Court has said before, he has discharged his

fiduciary duties faithfully and well in this complicated and protracted
case. Doc. 332 at 17.
Fourth, new evidence? Eli's motion discusses tape recordings

made by Mrs. Stiny. The Stiny grandchildren had those recordings in
hand before the June 2022 trial. They were not offered in evidence.

They are not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of
Rule 60(b) or the precedent. Arnold v. ADT Security Services, Inc.,
627 F.3d 716, 721-22 (8th Cir. 2010). It is not clear, moreover, how the

recordings bear on the potential assignment issue. Next, while Eli says
he has new information from some Moore family members about items

belonging to his grandfather, no particulars are given. The personal
-2-

property is not identified. The individuals with knowledge are not

identified. All this is insufficient to revisit whether Jason Wood has any
of this property. And all of it is insufficient to support the proposed
assignment.

Fifth, the Stiny grandchildren helpfully identified the back-rent
issue a few months ago. As directed, the trustee has investigated
further. The trustee must continue his work here and report to the
Court by 20 December 2024. Three of five individuals who owed back
rent are still tenants.

They owed more than $20,000, approximately

two-thirds of the total on this issue. The trustee now has copies of their
leases, in addition to the payment ledgers. These three individuals can

be reached easily for informal and formal collection efforts. The trustee
must therefore promptly figure out if the applicable law allows

collection efforts and, if so, how best to pursue those efforts cost

effectively. This potential trust asset does not justify reconsideration.
The trustee can and will handle it; no assignment to the Stiny

grandchildren is needed.
Sixth, the Court appreciates Andrew and Alexis specifically

identifying the potential claim they wish to pursue through the
assignment: a potential tax refund to the trust based on a possible
undervaluation of Al Stiny's estate. Eli and Andrew testified at trial
about their views on their grandfather's estate and property values.
As the trustee points out, though, the Court considered all the evidence

-3-

on point and decided this issue last spring.

Doc. 332 at 6-8, 35.

The Stiny grandchildren have not pointed to any newly discovered

evidence about the value of the apartment complexes (or any of the
other property) at Al Stiny's death. If they know of any such evidence,

they must provide it to the trustee by 20 December 2024. The trustee
will decide with direction from this Court if need be on whether
-

-

there is any solid basis to go down the amended returns road that the
Stiny grandchildren seek to explore. The possibility that Al's estate was
undervalued, and the maybe of amended returns, do not provide a

sufficient basis to reconsider the requested assignment of potential
claims.

Seventh, all the Stiny grandchildren advance the possibility of
potential but unknown claims. For the reasons the Court gave before,
this possibility is outweighed by the risk of involving the trust and the

beneficiaries in future litigation and further delay including litigation
-

about Eli's offered indemnity. Distribution of trust assets and the end

of administration are in reach. Pressing forward toward those goals,
and wrapping everything up, is in the best interest of all the
beneficiaries. Continued litigation and disputation about possibilities
is not.

Beyond the alleged undervaluation issue, if the Stiny

grandchildren know of (or later identify) any potential claim, they must
immediately notify the trustee with documents and all supporting
-4-

information. That is how any potential claims should be evaluated and

addressed in the coming months. Hypothetical claims do not justify
the proposed assignment.
*

Based on all the relevant facts of record, and having considered

the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court denies the
Stiny grandchildren's motions to reconsider, Doc. 381 & 382.
No manifest injustice has occurred on any argued issue. And, in the

circumstances presented, no sufficient reason supports ordering the
trustee to assign potential claims of the trust to the Stiny grandchildren.

Trustee's further status report on back-rent issues due by
20 December 2024. Any further report from the Stiny grandchildren to
the trustee about undervaluation/amended returns issues due by the
same date. The trustee must also report to the Court on that potential
issue in his next status report after the first of the year.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
A/o-vetthet ^-o1

-5-