Developments Supporting Private Wealth Structures in Nevada

Nevada has long been one of the premier jurisdictions in the United States for high-net-worth individuals and family offices seeking sophisticated trust structures, robust asset protection, and a flexible legislative framework. That reputation rests on decades of deliberate statutory innovation, specialised courts to adjudicate trust and estate matters, and an unwavering commitment to offering practitioners and their clients the tools to structure, administer, and protect wealth across generations.

The past year has further strengthened that position. Senate Bill 404 (SB 404), effective October 1, 2025, provides a number of material updates to Nevada's probate and trust administration statutes, addressing practical inefficiencies, emerging tax issues, and the need for greater certainty in fiduciary litigation. In addition, Nevada's appellate courts have issued significant decisions that clarify the rules governing trust confidentiality, personal jurisdiction, malpractice standing, and settlement procedure, providing the kind of doctrinal clarity that sophisticated practitioners and institutional clients depend on. Additionally, three areas of developing litigation are emerging as opportunities for Nevada's courts to further define the contours of the jurisdiction's already-robust trust framework.

For international clients and their advisors evaluating Nevada as a trust situs, the message is straightforward: Nevada continues to lead, and the legal infrastructure supporting private wealth structures in the state has never been stronger.

Legislative Update: Senate Bill 404

Probate administration

SB 404 provides a number of material updates to Nevada's probate and trust administration statutes, reflecting the legislature's continuing commitment to keeping Nevada's fiduciary framework current, practical, and responsive to the needs of families and their advisors. Among the most immediately practical changes are updates to the thresholds governing simplified probate procedures, which had not been adjusted since 2015. The limit for summary administration rises from USD300,000 to USD500,000, and the thresholds for set-aside without administration and a surviving spouse's affidavit of entitlement each increase from USD100,000 to USD150,000. In a state where metropolitan real estate values have risen substantially, these adjustments will allow a meaningful number of estates – particularly those consisting primarily of a family residence – to bypass full probate entirely, reducing cost and delay for surviving families.

SB 404 also modernises administrator appointment priority by aligning it with Nevada's intestate succession framework. Grandchildren and other issue of the decedent now take priority over parents, with custodial parents or guardians stepping into that position for minor heirs. A new catchall provision allows any qualified person to seek appointment upon a showing of good cause and due diligence in locating higher-priority heirs, and courts now have express discretion under new NRS 139.040(5) to appoint an heir holding a greater interest in the estate or an independent personal representative where circumstances warrant. This flexibility reflects Nevada's ongoing effort to ensure that probate administration is efficient, equitable, and tailored to the realities of modern families.

Trust administration

The amendment to NRS 164.045 fills a longstanding gap by expressly providing that Nevada law governs trust administration where the trust instrument so provides, where Nevada is subsequently designated by an authorised person, or where the trust is actually administered in Nevada. A trustee who acts in good faith under a reasonable belief that another jurisdiction's laws apply will have liability assessed under that other jurisdiction's law – a practical safe harbour that provides welcome certainty in multi-jurisdictional trust arrangements, which are common among Nevada's international and cross-border clientele.

Two additional provisions enhance administrative flexibility. Firstly, a trustee may now distribute assets directly to beneficiaries rather than fund a subtrust where that subtrust would require immediate distribution upon formation anyway – the instrument does not prohibit direct distribution, and the distributing fiduciary and would-be subtrust trustee are the same person, eliminating unnecessary trust formation where it would serve no meaningful purpose. Secondly, amended NRS 165.1214 now explicitly provides that with absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation, a trustee is fully released from liability for all matters set forth in a court-approved final trust accounting. Accountings may now also be approved through a trust adviser, trust protector, or nonjudicial settlement agreement, giving practitioners a broader and more efficient set of tools to resolve accounting matters privately and conclusively.

SB 404 also demonstrates Nevada's attentiveness to federal tax developments. In response to IRS Chief Counsel Advice 202352018, which raised concerns that a beneficiary's consent to a trustee's power to reimburse a grantor trust's tax obligations could constitute a taxable gift, SB 404 amends NRS 163.557 to make that reimbursement power a statutory default. This eliminates the need for beneficiary consent and addresses the gift tax concern the IRS had identified, reflecting the kind of proactive legislative response that has long distinguished Nevada as a trust-forward jurisdiction.

Fiduciary litigation

SB 404 establishes a shortened two-year statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims not involving fraud or intentional misrepresentation, accruing from the date the aggrieved party discovered – or through reasonable diligence should have discovered – the material facts giving rise to the claim. This shortened limitations period lessens litigation exposure by ensuring timely claims. It is a welcome addition to Nevada's fiduciary litigation landscape and consistent with the legislature's broader goal of promoting efficiency in trust and estate disputes.

Nevada’s Decanting Framework: A Powerful and Principled Tool

Nevada is one of the most permissive and sophisticated decanting jurisdictions in the country. NRS 163.556 imposes no notice-to-beneficiaries requirement, permits decanting from an ascertainable distribution standard into a fully discretionary trust, allows removal of mandatory income interests, and permits acceleration of a remainder beneficiary's interest. These features make Nevada a premier destination for trustees seeking to modernise trust terms, improve asset protection, adapt to changes in federal exemption amounts, or address changing family circumstances. Common and legitimate applications include correcting scriveners' errors, eliminating provisions tied to repealed law, restructuring distribution standards to preserve a beneficiary's government benefit eligibility, and changing trust situs to a more favourable jurisdiction.

Nevada's broad decanting authority reflects a mature legislative judgment that trustees are best positioned to respond to the evolving needs of trust beneficiaries – and that the law should give them the tools to do so without unnecessary procedural obstacles. At the same time, Nevada's framework pairs that statutory flexibility with well-established fiduciary duties rooted in the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, which Nevada courts apply. Far from limiting the utility of NRS 163.556, these duties ensure that decanting authority is exercised in a manner that serves all beneficiaries and preserves the integrity of the trust relationship. The duty of loyalty, the duty of impartiality as to current and remainder beneficiaries, the duty of prudence in assessing tax and administrative consequences, and the duty of good faith in identifying a legitimate purpose – together these standards give trustees a principled framework for making and documenting decanting decisions with confidence.

Decisions from other jurisdictions illustrate the value of this framework. In Hodges v. Johnson, 177 A.3d 831 (N.H. 2017), trustees who failed to seek independent advice and relied too heavily on the settlor's paid counsel in executing a decanting that eliminated certain beneficiaries' interests were surcharged with the full costs of the resulting litigation. In Matter of Niki and Darren Irrevocable Trust, 2024 WL 3515556 (Del. Ch. 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery voided a decanting where the trustee lacked the underlying power to invade principal, reaffirming that the scope of decanting authority is defined by the original trust instrument. These decisions underscore the importance of careful pre-decanting analysis, and highlight why Nevada's combination of broad statutory authority and well-defined fiduciary standards offers trustees a more complete and defensible framework than jurisdictions that provide one without the other.

When a trustee determines that decanting is both legally permissible and fiduciarily appropriate, Nevada offers a variety of procedural mechanisms to implement the decision efficiently and with maximum protection. Nonjudicial settlement agreements under NRS 164.950 and notices of proposed action provide privacy and flexibility for straightforward matters. For more complex or potentially contested decantings, a petition for instructions under NRS 164.040 affords court review before action is taken, ensures due process for all interested parties, and provides binding judicial approval that conclusively protects the trustee from subsequent challenge. Nevada's procedural toolkit is intentionally broad, allowing trustees and their counsel to select the approach best suited to the circumstances.

Key Judicial Developments

Nevada courts provide a clear framework for trust confidentiality

In New York Times Co. v. Second Judicial District Court, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 581 P.3d 427 (2025), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed, as a matter of first impression, the proper scope of Nevada's trust confidentiality statutes, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256. The decision provides practitioners with a clear and workable framework for protecting sensitive trust information in litigation. The court confirmed that these statutes afford a meaningful right to seal trust filings, while clarifying that any sealing order must be supported by specific factual findings that a significant confidentiality interest outweighs the public's right of access – and that redaction should be considered as a less restrictive alternative where appropriate. The court also confirmed that hearings may not be closed to the public under these statutes, as they address only written filings. With this guidance in hand, Nevada practitioners now have a well-defined roadmap for seeking and maintaining confidentiality protections in trust proceedings.

Nevada courts define the jurisdictional framework for non-resident trustees

In Matter of Richard H. Goldstein Irrevocable Trust, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, 575 P.3d 72 (2025), the Nevada Supreme Court provided important guidance on the jurisdictional framework applicable to trust litigation involving out-of-state trustees. The court held that personal jurisdiction over a non-resident trustee requires minimum contacts with Nevada – and that in rem jurisdiction over trust property under NRS 164.010 and the presence of a registered agent in Nevada are independent considerations that do not, standing alone, satisfy that requirement. For Nevada's institutional trust community and the international clients who rely on Nevada-administered trusts, this decision provides valuable clarity: Nevada courts will respect traditional due process boundaries, and trustees who administer trusts outside Nevada can have confidence that they will not be subjected to Nevada jurisdiction based on general commercial activity unconnected to the trust.

Nevada extends a meaningful remedy to intended trust beneficiaries

In Bernstein v. Morris, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, 584 P.3d 166 (Nev. App. 2025), the Nevada Court of Appeals strengthened protections for intended trust beneficiaries by rejecting the strict privity rule and adopting the balancing test from Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal.2d 583 (1961). Under this approach, an intended beneficiary may have standing to bring a malpractice claim against the drafting attorney when the primary purpose of the representation was to benefit that person. This case arose when an attorney's failure to expressly reference a power of appointment in trust amendment documents rendered the exercise of the power ineffective. The court also held that a transactional malpractice claim ripens once the litigant incurs any costs in retaining separate counsel to address the contested documents. This decision reflects Nevada's commitment to ensuring that trust beneficiaries have meaningful legal recourse when professional errors deprive them of their intended inheritance.

Procedural clarity: settlement, relief from judgment, and appellate deadlines

Three decisions have reinforced important procedural principles that provide predictability and finality in Nevada trust litigation.

• In Carlson v. Nevada Trust Company, 563 P.3d 774 (Nev. 2025) (unpublished), the Supreme Court affirmed that NRCP 60(b) relief requires genuine diligence – actual knowledge of proceedings, combined with inaction and attorney involvement, will not support relief even when the motion is filed within the six-month window.
• In re Jordan Dana Frasier Family Trust, 564 P.3d 44 (Nev. 2025) (unpublished), the court held that remainder beneficiaries are indispensable parties to any settlement that would materially affect their interests, drawing on NRS 164.942's non-judicial settlement framework to protect the integrity of the settlement process.
• In Matter of Singer, 578 P.3d 1193 (Nev. App. 2025) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals confirmed that NRS 155.190's 30-day appellate deadline for interlocutory probate and trust orders is jurisdictional, while reaffirming that no-contest clauses are strictly construed – a petition for accounting does not constitute a challenge to the trust's validity.

Together, these decisions reflect Nevada's commitment to the efficient, final, and predictable resolution of trust disputes.

Elder abuse protections enforced robustly

In Matter of Rodriguez Living Trust, 569 P.3d 215 (Nev. App. 2025) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals affirmed a USD2.3 million judgment against a defendant who had used undue influence, incapacity, fraud, and elder abuse to supplant the original trustee through trust amendments. The court held that the superseded trustee had standing as an interested person to challenge those amendments, and that the grantor need not be joined as a necessary party where the trustee held her power of attorney and adequately represented her interests. The court further upheld an order requiring return of a home purchased with trust funds but titled in the defendant's name, since the trust instrument prohibited asset transfers without adequate consideration. The decision reflects Nevada's robust protection of vulnerable adults and its willingness to use the full range of available remedies to restore assets wrongfully taken from a trust.

Federal courts affirm Nevada’s governing role in trust construction and interpretation

Two federal decisions this term engaged with Nevada trust law in instructive ways. In United States v. Huckaby, 2026 WL 587784 (E.D. Cal. 2026) (unpublished), the Eastern District of California affirmed that Nevada law governs the construction and interpretation of a Nevada self-settled spendthrift trust – a reaffirmation of Nevada's role as the controlling authority on the terms and administration of Nevada trust instruments. The court's separate holding that California law, as the law of the situs, governed the enforceability of a creditor claim against California real property is consistent with well-established choice-of-law principles and reinforces the importance of thoughtful asset selection when establishing a Nevada SSST. Advisors who ensure that protected assets are properly situated within Nevada's legal framework can be confident in the strength of Nevada's creditor protection statutes.

In Onemata Corporation v. Rahman, 2025 WL 2696584 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (unpublished), a Florida federal court applied Nevada's foundational principle that the trustee – not the trust – is the real party in interest in litigation, confirming the reach and coherence of Nevada trust law, even in out-of-state proceedings. That case further develops the application of Nevada's creditor protection framework.

Emerging Litigation Trends

Three areas of developing litigation provide Nevada's courts with the opportunity to further define and strengthen the contours of the state's trust framework.

Challenges to foreign trusts decanted into Nevada have increased in frequency, and they reflect the growing appeal of Nevada as a destination jurisdiction for trust modernisation. These cases typically involve the appointment of a Nevada trustee, a change of situs, and a decanting that updates beneficial interests to reflect changed circumstances or planning objectives. While individual decantings may be contested, the litigation itself serves an important function: as Nevada's courts resolve these disputes, they will produce a body of precedent that further clarifies the standards governing trustee authority and fiduciary discretion under NRS 163.556, strengthening the predictability of the Nevada decanting framework for future users.

Disputes over the governance of family trust companies present Nevada's courts with an opportunity to address the intersection of trust law and corporate law in a uniquely Nevada context. Nevada's FTC statutes allow wealthy families to serve as their own institutional trustee through a licensed corporate entity, a structure that reflects the legislature's confidence in the ability of sophisticated families to manage their own fiduciary affairs. Litigation in this area raises questions about the application of the business judgment rule to directors exercising trustee-level discretion, the scope of reliance on counsel as a defense, and the allocation of personal liability among board members. Nevada's resolution of these issues will provide valuable guidance for the substantial number of family trust companies operating in the state and for the families who rely on them.

Settlor challenges to self-settled spendthrift trusts (SSST) is an emerging area that further demonstrates the centrality of the Nevada SSST to modern asset protection planning. Nevada's SSST statute, NRS 166.040, is among the most favorable in the country, offering a two-year limitations period for fraudulent transfer claims, a permissive distribution standard, and broad protection from creditor claims. When settlors later seek to modify or terminate these structures – whether through claims of fraud on formation, undue influence, or changed circumstances – Nevada's courts have the opportunity to reaffirm the durability and integrity of properly structured SSSTs. The outcomes in these cases will further cement Nevada's reputation as a jurisdiction that takes its asset protection commitments seriously.

Conclusion

Nevada's position as a leading jurisdiction for private wealth structures is the product of sustained and deliberate effort by a legislature that consistently modernises the statutory framework, by courts that provide meaningful and predictable guidance, and by a practitioner community that has built the expertise and infrastructure to support the most sophisticated trust and estate work in the country.

The developments surveyed in this article reflect all three of those strengths. SB 404 demonstrates a legislature attuned to the practical needs of fiduciaries and their clients. The appellate decisions of the past year provide the doctrinal clarity that sophisticated trust planning demands. And the emerging litigation trends signal that Nevada's courts will soon have the opportunity to further develop the law in ways that benefit trustees, beneficiaries, and the families who depend on Nevada's framework to protect and preserve their wealth for generations to come. For clients and advisors evaluating where to establish, administer, or migrate a trust, Nevada's trajectory is clear – and it continues to point upward.