A recent decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has resolved a dispute among siblings over the distribution of settlement proceeds from their late mother’s revocable trust, affirming that only those who participated in legal action against the former trustee are entitled to share in the settlement. The ruling comes after two beneficiaries challenged a circuit court order approving a $250,000 agreement between their brothers and the estate of the deceased trustee.
The complaint was filed by Ronald G. Adams and Jeffrey W. Adams in Columbia County Circuit Court against Maurice A. Adams and Stephen T. Adams, with the Estate of James B. Schommer named as trustee-respondent. The appellate decision, dated March 26, 2026, confirms that Maurice and Stephen Adams’ appeal was denied and upholds the original circuit court order.
According to court documents, Ron, Jeff, Maurice, and Stephen are siblings who were all named as beneficiaries of their mother’s trust (the Trust), which included cash assets as well as shares in real estate and limited liability companies. After their mother’s death, James Schommer was appointed trustee with instructions to divide assets equally among the four siblings. However, Ron and Jeff alleged that Schommer breached his fiduciary duties by mismanaging the Trust in ways that favored Maurice and Stephen at their expense.
Specifically, Ron and Jeff claimed that while they preferred to receive cash distributions from the Trust, Maurice and Stephen wanted shares in LLCs and real estate holdings. They alleged that Schommer increased distributions to Maurice and Stephen by accounting for estimated tax payments and selling expenses they might incur if they sold their shares in the future. Additionally, Ron and Jeff accused Schommer of using outdated appraisals for asset valuation, failing to provide them with current information about the Trust’s status, and not maintaining adequate records.
In support of their claims for damages, Ron and Jeff referenced an expert report prepared by a forensic accountant identifying unsubstantiated amounts billed to the Trust by Schommer as well as payments made on behalf of Maurice’s son for management fees. After initiating legal proceedings against Schommer—who died during litigation—his estate was substituted as a party.
Through mediation efforts not joined by Maurice or Stephen (who stated they did not believe Schommer had acted improperly), Ron and Jeff reached a settlement agreement with Schommer’s estate for $250,000. The final version of this agreement did not require releases from Maurice or Stephen after they refused to sign such documents.
Ron, Jeff, and Schommer’s estate then sought circuit court approval for this settlement; however, Maurice and Stephen objected on grounds that any proceeds should be paid into the Trust rather than directly to individual beneficiaries. The circuit court disagreed with this argument: “if Maurice and Stephen had wanted to join the action against the Estate of Schommer, they should have done it at the time it was filed,” reasoning further that allowing them now to benefit would be akin to unjust enrichment.
On appeal, Maurice and Stephen argued primarily that harm was suffered by the Trust itself rather than any individual beneficiary—and thus any recovery should belong collectively to all beneficiaries through the Trust structure. They cited Wisconsin Statute § 701.1002(1)(a) regarding remedies for breach of trust but did not address or refute case law establishing judicial discretion over approval of settlements nor did they show how they were individually harmed by actions taken by Schommer.
The appellate panel found these arguments insufficient: “Contrary to Maurice and Stephen’s characterization…the alleged damages were not only to the Trust but included damages specific to Ron and Jeff.” The opinion also noted that statutory language allows recovery by an “affected beneficiary” rather than requiring all proceeds go back into trust property if specific individuals were harmed.
Additionally, an argument raised regarding judicial estoppel—that Ron and Jeff changed legal positions regarding entitlement—was rejected because there was no evidence presented showing inconsistent positions adopted before different courts.
Ultimately finding no mistaken application of law or abuse of discretion by the lower court judge Roger L. Klopp—and noting that unrefuted arguments are deemed conceded—the appeals court affirmed approval of distributing settlement funds directly to Ron and Jeff alone.
The attorneys’ names are not specified in this document; Judge Roger L. Klopp presided over proceedings at circuit level; appellate review occurred under case number 2025AP240.
Source: 2025AP240_Virginia_L_Adams_Revocable_Trust_v_Adams_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
