A contentious legal battle over the division of a family trust's personal property has reached the California Court of Appeal, raising questions about trustee responsibilities and probate court authority. Jeffrey Stebbins, acting as trustee, filed an appeal on October 2, 2024, challenging a probate court order that mandated the sale of certain personal assets from his father's estate and equal distribution of proceeds between him and his sister, Stefanie Stebbins. The dispute centers around whether Jeffrey acted in good faith while dividing the property as per their late father's trust.
The case was filed in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three. It stems from an ongoing disagreement between siblings Jeffrey and Stefanie Stebbins over the Francis Stebbins Living Trust. Established on September 21, 1992, and amended in March 2008, this trust named both siblings as equal beneficiaries following their father’s death in 2019. According to the trust's terms, all personal items not otherwise disposed of were to be divided equally by Jeffrey as trustee.
In February 2028, Stefanie petitioned for instructions regarding the distribution of trust assets. She claimed that Jeffrey failed to provide a comprehensive inventory or valuation of their father's personal property and had not distributed any items from the trust. Her petition requested a full inventory and equitable division of assets into two lists for her to choose from. The probate court sided with Stefanie on March 30, 2023, ordering Jeffrey to provide an inventory within thirty days and distribute assets equally within sixty days.
Jeffrey argued that he had discretion over when to distribute assets after their father’s death and claimed he provided a list to Stefanie without receiving feedback on her preferences. Despite his efforts to delay distribution due to pending appraisals on real estate holdings valued at $6.8 million and other assets worth approximately $400,000, the court expressed concern over delays and eventually denied further extensions beyond September 30, 2023.
As tensions escalated, Stefanie filed for court supervision in August 2023, alleging missing items from Jeffrey’s inventory and inequitable proposed distributions. She accused him of using subjective judgments rather than specific valuations for asset division. In response, Jeffrey maintained that his allocations were fair but admitted no formal appraisals were conducted due to perceived low value by a probate referee.
The appellate court reviewed whether the probate court exceeded its authority by ordering asset liquidation instead of ensuring equitable division per trust terms. Citing precedents like Copley v. Copley (1981), it emphasized trustees must act in good faith with transparent valuations for meaningful asset division—something lacking in Jeffrey’s approach according to records presented.
Ultimately reversing part of the lower court's decision while remanding for further consideration under these guidelines suggests possible inadequacies exist within current proceedings surrounding familial trusts’ administration processes today—highlighting potential need reforms ensuring accountability among trustees nationwide moving forward together harmoniously toward shared goals benefiting all parties involved equitably alike long-term sustainability success stories abound everywhere around us daily basis truly remarkable indeed!
Representing legal counsel includes Petrou J., Tucher P.J., Rodriguez J., with Case ID A169424 under Humboldt County Super Ct No PR2300026.