Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00346/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00346-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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 three Stiny grandchildren move the Court to alter or amend

its April 2024 Memorandum Opinion and Order. They seek

reconsideration, arguing that this Court's ruling works a manifest

injustice. The trustee opposes this motion.

The Court has reconsidered, but declines to alter its decision.

First, the Court did not require the Stiny grandchildren to provide an

accounting to get an accounting. In deciding whether to exercise its

discretion under the governing California law, the Court considered

every material circumstance. The Stiny grandchildren's inability to

make a preliminary showing of some wrongdoing -notwithstanding

all the available information, including the well-organized exhibits and

trial testimony from the Centennial Bank/Wood part of the litigation,

and all the accessible materials in the Court's docket-was one

such circumstance that weighed against further investigation.

Second, more delay in fulfilling Mr. and Mrs. Stinys' testamentary

intentions through a final distribution of the trust's assets weighed in

the balance. The Court should have ruled more promptly after the

Case 3:19-cv-00346-DPM Document 348 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 2
bench trial, and regrets its tardiness in handling this important part of

this tangled case. But the Court's responsibility for some of the delay

does not justify a further delay for a forensic accounting. Third, the

Court considered Eli Stiny's willingness to pay for that accounting from

his eventual distribution. The offer is commendable, but inequitable:

If an accounting was justified, its cost should be borne by all

beneficiaries. On the record as a whole, a forensic accounting from 2010

to the present was not justified. Fourth, the Court did the best it could

and sees no manifest error of fact or law that should be corrected on

reconsideration.

* * *

Motion, Doc 334, denied.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

18 )ttf zc

-2-

Case 3:19-cv-00346-DPM Document 348 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 2