Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

In re Estate of Prestie

Nevada Supreme Court
138 P.3d 520 (2006)


Facts

Although Maria (plaintiff) and W.R. Prestie were first married in 1987 and divorced two years later, they remained friendly and eventually both moved to Las Vegas, living separately at first and later together when W.R.’s sight was declining and Maria moved in to help care for him in 2001. Shortly after Maria moved in, W.R. amended the W.R. Prestie Living Trust (the Trust), which he executed in 1994 after his divorce from Maria and made his son, Scott Prestie (defendant), the trustee and beneficiary of the Trust. The amendment granted Maria a life estate in the condominium where they lived together. When W.R. had executed the original Trust in 1994, he also executed a pour-over will that devised his entire estate to the Trust. W.R. had not changed his will when he died nine months after remarrying Maria. Maria sought to take half of W.R.’s estate in intestacy under Nev. Rev. Stat. 133.110. Pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 133.110, if a spouse who marries the testator after the making of his will survives the testator and the will neither provides for the surviving spouse nor indicates an intention to exclude the surviving spouse, and no marriage contract was entered into, the will is revoked as to the surviving spouse. Nev. Rev. Stat. 133.110 stated further that “no other evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation shall be received.” Scott opposed Maria’s claim, asserting that Nev. Rev. Stat. 133.110 did not apply because W.R. had provided for Maria by amending the Trust. The probate court held that the amendment to the Trust did not constitute a provision for Maria in the will and recommended revocation of the will pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 133.110. The district court adopted this recommendation and Scott appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Hardesty, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.