In re Estate of Prestie
undisclosed (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Nevada law, an amendment to an inter vivos trust that provides for a surviving spouse cannot rebut the statutory presumption that a will executed before the marriage is revoked as to that spouse. The only admissible evidence to rebut this presumption is a marriage contract, a provision for the spouse within the will itself, or a provision in the will expressing intent to not provide for the spouse.
Facts:
- In 1987, W.R. Prestie and Maria married, divorcing two years later but remaining amicable.
- In 1994, W.R. executed a pour-over will devising his entire estate to a living trust; his son, Scott Prestie, was trustee and beneficiary, and Maria was not mentioned in either document.
- As W.R.'s eyesight deteriorated due to macular degeneration, Maria moved into his condominium in 2000 to provide care for him.
- In 2001, W.R. amended the living trust to grant Maria a life estate in his condominium upon his death.
- A few weeks after amending the trust, W.R. and Maria remarried.
- W.R. died approximately nine months after the remarriage without having updated his 1994 will.
- Following W.R.'s death, Maria lived in the condominium, with expenses paid from the trust as per the trust amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Prestie petitioned the district court for a one-half intestate succession share of W.R. Prestie's estate.
- Maria argued that W.R.'s will was revoked as to her under NRS 133.110 because she was an unintentionally omitted spouse.
- The probate commissioner found that none of the statutory exceptions applied and recommended that the will be revoked as to Maria.
- The district court entered an order adopting the probate commissioner’s report and recommendations.
- Scott Prestie, as trustee and appellant, appealed the district court's order to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an amendment to an inter vivos trust that provides for a surviving spouse rebut the statutory presumption under NRS 133.110 that a will made before the marriage is revoked as to that spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardesty, J.
No. An amendment to an inter vivos trust cannot rebut the statutory presumption that a will is revoked as to a spouse married after the will's execution. Nevada's statute on will revocation, NRS 133.110, is plain, unambiguous, and must be strictly construed. It establishes a presumption of revocation and provides only three exclusive exceptions to rebut it: (1) a marriage contract providing for the spouse, (2) a provision for the spouse within the will itself, or (3) a provision in the will showing a clear intention not to provide for the spouse. The statute explicitly states that 'no other evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation shall be received.' An amendment to a separate trust is extrinsic evidence not listed in the statute and is therefore inadmissible to prove the testator's intent. Furthermore, the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply, as Maria's beneficial interest in the trust is independent of her statutory claim for an intestate share under the will.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets Nevada's omitted spouse statute, reinforcing that courts will not look to extrinsic evidence, such as a revocable trust, to discern a testator's intent regarding a new spouse. It serves as a significant warning for modern estate planning, where pour-over wills and trusts are common. The case establishes a bright-line rule that a will must be updated upon a subsequent marriage to prevent its partial revocation, as provisions in a separate trust are legally insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. This holding prioritizes statutory formalism over a more flexible, intent-based approach to will interpretation in the context of subsequent marriages.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Prestie