Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 133.110 (2026)

Revocation by marriage; effect upon rights of surviving spouse; effect of such rights on remaining provisions of will

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 133.110  Revocation by marriage; effect upon rights of surviving spouse; effect of such rights on remaining provisions of will.

      1.  If a person marries after making a will and the spouse survives the maker, the will is revoked as to the spouse, unless:

      (a) Provision has been made for the spouse by marriage contract;

      (b) The spouse is provided for in the will, or in such a way mentioned therein as to show an intention not to make such provision, including, without limitation, by a reference in the will to a future spouse by name; or

      (c) The spouse is provided for by a transfer of property outside of the will and it appears that the maker intended the transfer to be in lieu of a testamentary provision.

      2.  When a will is revoked as to the spouse pursuant to subsection 1:

      (a) The spouse is entitled to the same share in the estate of the deceased spouse as if the deceased spouse had died intestate; and

      (b) The remaining provisions of the will remain intact to the extent those provisions are not inconsistent with paragraph (a), including, without limitation, any provision concerning the appointment of a personal representative.

      [10:61:1862; A 1947, 84; 1943 NCL § 9914]—(NRS A 2009, 1623; 2015, 3527)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: Prestie v. Prestie, 138 P.3d 520 (Nev. 2006).
Prestie v. Prestie, 138 P.3d 520 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 24× “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.”
Leggett v. Est. of Leggett, 494 P.2d 554 (Nev. 1972). · cites it 20× “In construing a statute nearly identical to NRS 133.110, the California Supreme Court has reasoned that public policy requires a testator to bear in mind the possibility of a subsequent marriage and the serious changes in domestic relations resulting therefrom.”
Riesterer v. Dietmeier, 646 P.2d 551 (Nev. 1982). · cites it 9× “Appellant, Betty, petitioned for appointment of a special administrator on the grounds that the will was revoked pursuant to NRS 133.110. The trial court determined that the will was not revoked and denied appellant’s petition.”
Todora v. Todora, 554 P.2d 738 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 3× “See NRS 133.110. However, Gail further contends that NRS 133.”
In Re: Matter Of King (Nev. 2020). · cites it 8× “SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA (0) I947A oleo f26 37i3) Davis argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial based on Bonnie's claim that the decedent's will was revoked by operation of law upon her marriage to decedent pursuant to NRS 133.110 (revoking…”
Horten v. Keating, 535 P.2d 796 (Nev. 1975). “NRS 133.110: “If a person marries after making a will and the spouse survives the maker, the will is revoked as to the spouse, unless provision has been made for the spouse by marriage contract, or unless the spouse is provided for in the will, or in such a way mentioned therein…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 133.110(1) — 1 case
In Re: Matter Of King (Nev. 2020). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA (0) I947A oleo f26 37i3) Davis argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial based on Bonnie's claim that the decedent's will was revoked by operation of law upon her marriage to decedent pursuant to NRS 133.110 (revoking…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.