USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Robert E. Armstrong, Zach Noland and Ian DeValliere, McDonald Carano
Newly Effective Amendments From the 2025 Legislative Session The Nevada Legislature recently enacted several amendments of Nevada trust statutes under Title 13 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) proposed by the State Bar of Nevada’s Probate and Trust Section. The amendments became effective on 1 October 2025. A handful stand out for their practical significance to Nevada private-wealth practice. Two-year limitations period for breach-of- fiduciary-duty claims NRS 11.190 was amended to assign a two-year limi - tations period for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims not involving fraud or intentional misrepresentation. This resolves a seemingly overbroad precedent in Nevada case law assigning a three-year limitations period. It also brings Nevada into closer competition with South Dakota, on whose equivalent statute of limitations the amendment was modelled. It also codifies a discovery rule: the cause of action accrues when the aggrieved party discovers, or, through the use of reasonable dili - gence should have discovered, the material facts that constitute the cause of action, whichever occurs ear - lier. For Nevada-resident fiduciaries with their principal place of business in the state, the change meaning - fully shortens the tail of exposure. Statutory reimbursement power for grantor-trust tax payments NRS 163.557 was amended to provide an express, statutory reimbursement power to trustees, making discretionary reimbursement a default power under any Nevada grantor trust that does not provide oth - erwise. Before its amendment, NRS 163.557 merely provided that a trust instrument may grant a trustee the power to reimburse the settlor for tax payments without liability to any person. The power to reimburse the settlor of a grantor trust was the subject of a significant IRS memorandum issued on 29 December 2023 (“CCA 202352018”). CCA 202352018 explains that adding a reimburse - ment power to a trust instrument may constitute a taxable gift from beneficiaries who consent or omit to object to the addition of the reimbursement power. This is of course an undesirable outcome for ben - eficiaries. Adding a default reimbursement power to
several private companies. Nevada’s projected growth of roughly 20% in retail charters over the coming year therefore stands out against a flat-to-declining charter trend in the largest competing jurisdiction. Wyoming offers a structurally similar menu to Nevada, with chartered public trust companies, regulated char - tered family trust companies subject to a USD500,000 minimum-capital requirement, and unregulated pri - vate family trust companies with no minimum-capital requirement, all overseen by the Wyoming Division of Banking. Wyoming’s public trust company cohort remains materially smaller than Nevada’s, and its initial capitalisation expectations for public charters, USD1.2 million plus first-year operating expenses, compared to Nevada’s statutory minimum of USD300,000, posi - tion the state as a boutique alternative rather than a volume competitor. Tennessee, whose investment-services-trust and community-property-trust statutes have made the state the most credible southeastern challenger on substantive trust law, charters both public and private trust companies through its Department of Financial Institutions, but its nondepository trust company pop - ulation likewise remains small relative to Nevada’s, and those companies are supervised within the Depart - ment’s Bank Division alongside state-chartered banks rather than under a dedicated trust-company regu - latory regime of the kind Nevada and South Dakota maintain. These comparisons suggest that Nevada is currently the fastest-growing of the major private-wealth juris - dictions in relative terms, pairing South Dakota-calibre substantive trust law with a chartering process, capital requirements, and regulations that families and institu - tions perceive as rigorous but reasonable and com - mercially navigable. The confidentiality architecture of NRS Chapter 669A, even as recalibrated by the New York Times decision discussed below, together with the absence of both a Nevada state income tax and a financial-institution tax on trust company net income of the kind South Dakota imposes, continues to dis - tinguish the Nevada charter.
798 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook