Understanding the stakes

Family disputes over estates are especially painful. When a parent dies and siblings disagree over how the estate (or trust) is managed, emotions, business entanglements and complex legal issues often mix. Law firms that manage contested probate can make a real difference; both for protecting rights and resolving conflict.

The decision in In re Estate of Sippel is a vivid illustration of how Illinois appellate courts approach these contests, what standards apply, how evidence is weighed, and what it takes (or fails) to remove a fiduciary or trustee. By understanding the decision, families and their advisors can better recognize when a legitimate contested probate petition exists and when the odds of success are slim.

Why this decision matters for our law office and clients

As a law office that oversees contested probate, this case gives us:

• A timely precedent (2025) from the Illinois Appellate Court in the Third District, which provides a fresh illustration of standards in trust/estate litigation.
• Marketing value: We can speak with families in plain language: “Here’s how the court is deciding these cases now — and here’s what you need to know.”
• Preparation guidance: We can advise clients (especially siblings) on what they should be doing early — preserving records, understanding fiduciary obligations, considering whether removal is realistic or compensation is the better path.

Case overview: In re Estate of Sippel

In brief: Decedent Harold E. Sippel created a revocable living trust in 2003 and amended it in 2014 to name his four children (Kevin Sippel, Richard Sippel, Debra Kroll, and Harold L. Sippel) as cotrustees upon his death.
The business he and his late wife ran, S & S Heating & Sheet Metal (S&S), and its building in Kankakee, Illinois, constituted major assets. After his death December 8, 2015, and the business stopped operations, the siblings resigned as co-trustees and appointed the bank (HomeStar Bank & Financial Services, now known as Midland States Bank) successor trustee.

The appellants (Harold L. Sippel and Kevin Sippel) filed a petition (Count III) to remove the bank as trustee, alleging a range of mis-management: undervalued sales of the business real estate and equipment, failure to account for shareholder loans and net operating losses (NOLs), conflicts of interest (the bank held a secured debt on S&S’s building), failure to disclose key information, and destruction or failure to preserve business records.

A bench trial followed, and the trial court denied the petition to remove. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court (Third District) affirmed the denial of the removal petition, sent the case back to the trial court for calculation of a money judgment against the bank, finding that although the bank was not removed, it was liable under the old Illinois precedent of Nonnast v. Northern Trust Co. for a portion of distributions when the estate/trust is in the creditor-position.

Key legal standards from the decision

Here are five important take-aways from the opinion that are highly relevant in contested-probate settings.

1. Removal of a trustee (or executor/administrator) is a drastic remedy

The court reaffirmed that removal of a trustee should be exercised sparingly, only upon a showing of “clear necessity.”  Even where misconduct or negligence exists, removal is not automatic, especially if the fiduciary can continue to serve without undermining the trust’s purpose. In this case the court found insufficient proof of willful misconduct or a conflict that irreparably harmed the trust to justify removal.

2. Burden and standard of review on appellate appeal

The opinion addresses how the appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision. For example, the court explains that the trial court’s decision to deny removal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In contested probate contexts (will/trust contests or petitions to remove fiduciaries), understanding how the appellate court will review helps in advising clients on settlement vs. appeal strategies.

3. Creditor status of estate/trust and rights under Nonnast

One of the key holdings in Sippel: the trust (or estate) was in the position of a creditor (via shareholder loans owed by S&S to decedent’s estate). Under Nonnast, when a trustee pays out to non-estate creditors, but the estate/trust is itself a creditor, the trustee may be liable for the estate’s portion of those payments. The court in Sippel found that the bank trustee should be held accountable under that doctrine and remanded for computation of the amount.

This is important because in many probate/business-estate disputes where the decedent was actively involved in a family business, the estate may have claims as creditor/owner/loan-holder and those rights can be pursued in the probate/administration process.

4. Procedural fairness and due process in the trial

The appellate court mentioned a procedural error: the trial court allowed the bank’s closing argument (via its motion for judgment) but did not allow petitioners to give a closing argument. The court found that the privilege of closing argument was not afforded equally, which was an abuse of discretion. While this did not lead to reversal/removal, it emphasizes how procedural fairness issues (e.g., access to records, equal treatment of parties) are relevant in contested-probate litigation.

5. Appraisal/valuation and fiduciary decision-making

Petitioners argued the bank sold major assets (the S&S building, houseboat, equipment) for far less than prior appraisals or purchase cost and failed properly to market them. The court reviewed the evidence and found no clear fiduciary breach: the bank relied on real-estate broker opinions, dealt with a weak market, and made reasoned decisions given tax, insurance, and holding-cost burdens.
This serves as a reminder: in contested probate petitions contesting fiduciary decisions (sales/transfers), by simply showing a lower sale price or change in value may not suffice—there must be proof of breach of fiduciary duty (duty, breach, causation, damages) and an argument that removal is necessary or compensation should be awarded.

What does this mean for siblings and families in estate disputes?

Here are practical take-aways for families, and thus for your law-office blog audience:

• Know the identity of all fiduciaries and understand their powers. If a trust pours-over from an estate (as in Sippel), siblings should know who the trustee is, what powers it has, and whether it acted without full transparency.
• Document early. In business-estate contexts (family companies, shareholder loans, business real estate, NOLs), siblings should obtain and preserve records early: financials, minutes, appraisals, correspondence. In Sippel, missing records and alleged destroyed computer hardware complicated the petitioners’ case.
• Valuations and sales require reasonableness, not perfection. Trustees have discretion, but must act prudently, loyally and with proper notice and documentation. Contesting a sale price is possible, but will require evidence of imprudence or conflict.
• Be realistic about removal. Petitioners should understand that removal of a fiduciary/trustee is difficult. An alternative is pursuing compensation (damages) for breach of fiduciary duty. As in Sippel, the court remanded for a money judgment rather than removal.
• Appeals hinge on standard of review and record. When a trial court denies a petition to remove a trustee, the appellate court will review for abuse of discretion. So, building a strong record at trial is vital.
• Special issues in business-estate relationships. When a decedent owned an active business, siblings may raise issues like shareholder loans, net operating losses, business valuations, intra-family transactions, and creditor/owner claims. Sippel shows how those interplay in contested probate.

Conclusion: When siblings fight over the estate

In family-estate disputes, emotions run high and the legal issues are often layered: trusts, business assets, fiduciaries, valuations, creditor-claims, procedural rights. The case of In re Estate of Sippel shows how a court analyzes these issues: giving deference to fiduciary discretion, demanding clear proof of breach and causation, but also enforcing creditor-rights of an estate/trust when valid.

If you are a family member who suspects the executor, administrator or trustee is acting unfairly or you are a fiduciary facing a petition; recognizing the standards and likely outcomes early can make the difference between escalation and resolution.

If you would like to talk about whether your situation might justify a contested probate petition (or defense thereof), feel free to contact us for a free consultation (708) 529-7794.