Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00346/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00346-26/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 ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE ELIJAH AND MARY 

STINY TRUSTS 

ORDER 

No. 3:19-cv-346-DPM 

1. Status report, Doc. 206, appreciated. Eli Stiny, Alexis Stiny, 

and Andrew Stiny (the Stiny grandchildren) object to the most recent 

bill for attorney's fees from Lilly. The trustee's report is otherwise 

unopposed. Setting the Lilly issue to one side, the Court approves all 

the trustee's actions taken and payments made as specified in this 

eleventh report. The Court is particularly glad to see the IRS closing 

letter on the Stiny estate return. 

2. The trustee's unopposed request to pay Lovett for work 

between December 2021 and March 2022 on behalf of Rena's estate is 

granted. This work was reasonable and necessary. The Court 

authorizes the trustee to pay Glenn Lovett, Jr. PLC $16,890.50 from 

Regions account No. xxxx4646 for attorney's fees and expenses. 

3. The trustee's unopposed request to pay himself for work as 

trustee, including some lawyering, for work between December 2021 

and February 2022 is granted. All this work needed to be done, too. 

The expenses total approximately $12,800.00. They were necessary. 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-DPM Document 220 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 3
The Court therefore authorizes the trustee to pay The Perkins Law 

Firm, P.A., $52,584.80 from Regions account No. xxxx4646. 

4. There is no objection to paying Naegeli Deposition and Trial 

$1,910.50 for services rendered during the trustee's deposition. The 

Court authorizes the trustee to pay this bill, or reimburse Lilly if he has 

already paid it, from Regions account No. xxxx4646. 

5. The Stiny grandchildren' s objection to Lilly's bill for work 

between December 2021 and March 2022 is partly sustained and mostly 

overruled. 

The Court's Order was clear: Lilly's role is limited to defending 

the trustee's challenged actions. Doc. 152. The difficulty, however, is 

the overlap between those actions and the deeper issues in the case. 

This is illustrated by the Stiny grandchildren' s designation of several 

depositions - which Lilly is criticized for attending and participating 

in - for our June trial. Plus, Lilly must keep up with the case as a whole 

to represent the trustee well. And the Stiny grandchildren also seem to 

be litigating issues related to the Centennial Bank/Wood litigation. 

Lilly was counsel for Wood then. It is a prudent way to reduce new 

attorney's fees (to Lovett and Perkins) by drawing on Lilly's experience. 

This will save the Trust money. The Court should have authorized this 

kind of work before. And so the Court expands Lilly's role a bit and 

approves the trustee's decision to use Lilly as a resource. The Court 

emphasizes that Lilly is not general counsel for this litigation. The 

-2-

Case 3:19-cv-00346-DPM Document 220 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 3
trustee must use Lilly prudently and only for the noted limited 

purposes. 

The Stiny grandchildren rightly point out another issue that needs 

attention. In the future, Lilly must also put more flesh on the bones in 

his bills. This will help the Court and all the parties see exactly what 

work he's doing. Lovett and Perkins provide good examples in their 

bills. 

Because Lilly's current bill provides insufficient details about the 

substance of his work, and because there was some duplication of effort 

with Perkins, the Court will trim the bill by 15%. The Court therefore 

authorizes the trustee to pay Lilly $21,090.62 from Regions account No. 

xxxx4646, for the December 2021 through March 2022 work. 

So Ordered. 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 3:19-cv-00346-DPM Document 220 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 3