USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Robert E. Armstrong, Zach Noland and Ian DeValliere, McDonald Carano
grantor trusts via statute does not have the same effect under CCA 202352018 because it obviates the need to add that power to any trust, including an existing trust, that does not expressly disallow reimbursement. The amended statute applies to trusts governed by or principally administered under Nevada law whether created before, on, or after 1 October 2025, subject to a notice-based election out and to guardrails preserv - ing federal tax benefits, and it disqualifies a trustee who is the deemed owner, a beneficiary, or a related or subordinate party from exercising the power. A recently enacted Florida statute provided a model for Nevada’s amendment. Specifying when Nevada law governs trust administration NRS 164.045 was amended to specify when Nevada law governs a trust’s administration. Establishing such criteria is particularly valuable when seeking to decant a foreign-sitused trust under NRS 163.556, which provides that Nevada law need not govern the trust to be decanted but only that the trust must be administered under Nevada law. The amendment pro - vides that Nevada law governs the administration of a trust where the instrument so provides or a person authorised to designate governing law has done so, and, notwithstanding a contrary general choice-of-law provision, while the trust is administered in Nevada, subject to limited exceptions. It also enumerates the trustee-residence and office criteria under which a trust is considered to be administered in the state, reducing uncertainty for out-of-state trusts re-situsing to Nevada. Trustee exculpation upon an approved and final account NRS 165.1214 was amended to clarify the effect of an approved-and-final account by adding an express exculpation provision. Absent fraud or intentional misrepresentation, the trustee is released and dis - charged from any and all liability to any and all ben - eficiaries of the trust for whom an account is deemed approved and final, as to all matters set forth in such an account. The amendment also provides by way of cross-reference to related statutes in Title 13 that an account may be approved by virtual representa - tion under a nonjudicial settlement agreement, and that a trust adviser or trust protector may approve an
account where notice or information to the beneficiar - ies has been waived or modified in accordance with NRS 163.004 or it is authorised under the terms of the trust instrument. This amendment, too, brings Nevada into closer competition with South Dakota, on whose equivalent statute the amendment was modelled. Noteworthy Appellate Decisions Three recent appellate decisions warrant attention. The first two refine the practical boundaries of two features central to Nevada’s value proposition as a private-wealth destination: confidentiality of trust proceedings and the reach of Nevada courts over trustees. The third opens a new avenue of drafting- attorney liability to trust beneficiaries. New York Times Co . v Second Judicial District Court , 141 Nev, Adv Op. 71, 581 P.3d 427 (2025) Granting a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order sealing records and closing pro - ceedings in a trust case, the Nevada Supreme Court held that elective sealing under NRS 164.041 is only “provisional,” after which election the trial court must review each sealed document to determine whether a compelling interest in sealing overcomes the com - mon-law presumption favouring public access to judicial proceedings, and whether a less restrictive alternative (eg, limited redaction) would suffice. The public’s concomitant interest in knowing the parties’ identities and the existence of the case similarly pre - cludes the use of pseudonyms (eg, “Matter of Doe Trust”) in almost all cases. Although this decision significantly diminishes a par - ty’s ability to seal court filings under NRS 164.041 and almost eliminates the ability to use pseudonyms, experience in the brief period since the decision indi - cates that courts nonetheless continue to recognise the need to balance privacy interests against the pub - lic’s right of access. To serve those interests, courts appear willing to hold closed hearings on motions to seal or redact, receive sensitive documents off the public docket, and allow significant redactions to filings. The practical lesson is that confidentiality in Nevada trust litigation now depends on a properly supported, document-specific showing rather than a unilateral election.
799 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook