Document Type


Publication Date


Case Synopsis

The Court determined that (1) family courts have subject matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings that involve issues otherwise outside the scope of family courts, (2) parol evidence may not be considered to determine party intent to form separate property agreements and self-settled spendthrift trusts where the written agreements are valid and unambiguous, (3) a court order equalizing assets between different spendthrift trusts is improper because the NRS protects against court orders that move assets from trusts and against moves that do not benefit trust beneficiaries, (4) spendthrift trusts may not be reached for payment of personal obligations not known at the time the trust is created, such as spousal or child support, given the NRS’ emphasis on protecting trust beneficiaries, (5) a court may not rely on a dismissed unjust enrichment claim in fashioning remedies, and (6) equitable remedies that impose on spendthrift trust assets are improper as such trusts are to be protected against court order.