In Re Estate Of Prestie

138 P.3d 520 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Maria and W.R. Prestie, California residents, married in Las Vegas in 1987 and divorced two years later, but remained on good terms. When W.R. began suffering the effects of macular degeneration and moved to Las Vegas, Maria followed him but maintained her own separate residence. In 1994, W.R. simultaneously executed an inter vivos trust and a pour-over will in California naming his son, Scott, as trustee and sole beneficiary. As W.R.’s eyesight declined, Maria took him to the doctor and cooked and cleaned for him. In 2000, she moved into W.R.’s condominium to take care of him. In 2001, W.R. amended his inter vivos trust, but not his will, to give Maria a life estate in his condominium upon his death. A few weeks later Maria and W.R. re-married. W.R. did not survive to their first anniversary. Maria petitioned the probate court for a one-half intestate succession share of W.R.’s estate on the basis that his will was revoked as to her upon their marriage under NRS 133.110. The probate court granted her petition, finding that the couple married without a marriage contract and W.R.’s will did not affirmatively state his intention to provide or not to provide for Maria. W.R.’s son, Scott appealed. Scott contends: (1) California law controls the terms of W.R.’s trust and will; (2) W.R.’s amendment of the trust rebutted the presumption of revocation of his will as to Maria; (3) NRS Title 13 (Trusts) barred Maria’s claim of unintentionally omitted spouse under NRS Title 12 (Wills); and (4) Maria was equitably estopped from asserting an unintentionally omitted spouse claim because she was provided for under the terms of W.R.’s amended trust which granted her a life estate in his condominium.