USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Robert E. Armstrong, Zach Noland and Ian DeValliere, McDonald Carano
Matter of Richard H . Goldstein Irrevocable Trust , 141 Nev, Adv Op. 41, 575 P.3d 72 (2025) Affirming a district court order dismissing a benefi - ciary’s petition for lack of personal jurisdiction over the trustee, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a court’s in rem jurisdiction over trust property is a nec - essary but not sufficient condition for jurisdiction over the trust. The court must also have personal jurisdic - tion over the trustee, which is a matter of minimum contacts with the forum state under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Because the beneficiary’s petition did not arise out of or relate to the trustee’s contact with Nevada, the trustee lacked sufficient contact with Nevada to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of a Nevada court. This decision is the third in a series of recent deci - sions from Nevada appellate courts, following Matter of Paul D . Burgauer Revocable Living Trust and Mat- ter of 23 Partners Trust I , interpreting Nevada’s trust- jurisdiction statute, NRS 164.010, and confirming that personal jurisdiction cannot be granted by statute but is instead a matter of US Constitutional law. For fami - lies that wish to retain highly competent trustees who reside beyond Nevada’s borders, this settled line of authority is a feature rather than a defect: the bar for hauling a nonresident trustee into a Nevada court is higher than a purely statutory reading would suggest. Bernstein v Morris , 141 Nev, Adv Op. 72, 584 P.3d 166 (Nev Ct. App. 2025) Reversing a district court order dismissing a trust ben - eficiary’s legal-malpractice claim against the drafting attorney, the Nevada Court of Appeals held that a trust beneficiary may have standing to sue the drafting attorney for legal malpractice under a newly adopted multi-factor test balancing intent of the transaction, foreseeability of harm, the beneficiary’s injury, proxim - ity of cause, the policy of preventing future harm, and the burden on the legal profession. The settlor’s use of a power of appointment was not in the settlor’s fidu - ciary capacity, so the common-law limitation on the duty of an attorney representing a fiduciary, breach of which duty would entitle only the fiduciary to sue, did not apply.
This decision adopts a balancing test from California case law supporting third-party standing in a legal- malpractice suit, without which a beneficiary’s claim could be dismissed if the beneficiary lacks a direct, attorney-client relationship with the attorney. For drafting attorneys and the trust companies that work alongside them, Bernstein expands potential expo - sure, although only marginally, and careful documen - tation of settlor intent, engagement scope, and the capacity in which powers are exercised now takes on additional importance. Outlook The past year’s developments point in a consistent direction. Two forces stand out. First, an accelerating influx of California and Washington residents contin - ues to generate new Nevada residents, new Nevada- sitused trusts, and a steady stream of existing trusts re- sitused through decanting and modification, all which are reflected in the pace of Nevada trust-company formations. Second, Nevada’s statutory framework grew incrementally more competitive while its appel - late courts drew sharper lines around what the state’s privacy and jurisdiction statutes can and cannot do. The elimination of the federal transfer-tax sunset has lifted the deadline and resolved the uncertainty that drove much recent private-wealth activity, but it has not diminished the structural reasons families choose Nevada. If anything, a more stable federal exemption lets clients plan on the merits rather than the calendar, and Nevada’s combination of perpetuities duration, asset protection, tax efficiency, and privacy remains difficult for competing jurisdictions to match.
800 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook