Legal Opinion

Prestie v. Prestie

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 2006No. 43921PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By the Court,

Hardesty, J.:

In this appeal, we consider whether an amendment to an inter vivos trust can rebut the presumption that a pour-over will is revoked as to an unintentionally omitted spouse. We conclude that the plain and unambiguous language of NRS 133.110 does not permit evidence of an amendment to an inter vivos trust to rebut the presumption of a will’s revocation as to an unintentionally omitted spouse. Lastly, we conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel has no application to the facts of this case. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s order revoking the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Topaz Mutual Co. v. MarshNevada Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Firestone v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Teriano v. Nevada State BankNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Edwards Industries, Inc. v. DTE/BTE, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Clark County Education Ass'n v. Clark County School DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 2006

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Sonia F. v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Waldman v. MainiNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Boucher v. ShawNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 2012
  5. D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, LLC v. Archon Corp.District Court, D. Nevada · 2008

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API