Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 136.240 (2026)

Petition for probate; same requirement of proof as other wills; testimony of witnesses; rebuttable presumption concerning certain wills; prima facie showing that will was not revoked; order

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 136.240 Petition for probate; same requirement of proof as other wills; testimony of witnesses; rebuttable presumption concerning certain wills; prima facie showing that will was not revoked; order.

1. The petition for the probate of a lost or destroyed will must include a copy of the will, or if no copy is available state, or be accompanied by a written statement of, the testamentary words, or the substance thereof.

2. If offered for probate, a lost or destroyed will must be proved in the same manner as other wills are proved under this chapter.

3. In addition, no will may be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by two or more credible witnesses and it is:

(a) Proved to have been in legal existence at the death of the person whose will it is claimed to be and has not otherwise been revoked or destroyed without the knowledge, consent or ratification of such person; or

(b) Shown to have been fraudulently destroyed in the lifetime of that person.

4. The testimony of each witness must be reduced to writing, signed by the witness and filed, and is admissible in evidence in any contest of the will if the witness has died or permanently moved from the State.

5. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary:

(a) The production of a person’s lost or destroyed will, whose primary beneficiary is a nontestamentary trust established by the person and in existence at his or her death, creates a rebuttable presumption that the will had not been revoked.

(b) The production of a copy of a person’s lost or destroyed will, whose provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by two or more credible witnesses, creates a rebuttable presumption that the will had not been revoked.

(c) A person may overcome the presumption set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the person whose will it is claimed to be destroyed the will with the intent to revoke the will before his or her death. In the absence of such evidence:

(1) The lost or destroyed will must be admitted to probate; and

(2) The court shall accept a copy of such a will as sufficient proof of the terms thereof without requiring further evidence.

(d) For a lost or destroyed will to which the presumption set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) does not apply, if the proponent of a lost or destroyed will makes a prima facie showing that it was more likely than not left unrevoked by the person whose will it is claimed to be before his or her death, then the will must be admitted to probate in absence of an objection. If such prima facie showing has been made, the court shall accept a copy of such a will as sufficient proof of the terms thereof without requiring further evidence in the absence of any objection.

6. If the will is established, its provisions must be set forth specifically in the order admitting it to probate, or a copy of the will must be attached to the order.

[35:107:1941; 1931 NCL § 9882.35]—(NRS A 1999, 2266; 2009, 1624; 2017, 1673; 2019, 1853)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Howard Hughes Med. Inst. v. Gavin, 621 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Howard Hughes Med. Inst. v. Gavin, 621 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 12× “(a) that alleged declarations of the testator may be considered testimony of one of the two credible witnesses required under NRS 136.240 to prove the contents of a lost will; .”

Est. of Irvine v. Doyle, 710 P.2d 1366 (Nev. 1985). · cites it 12× “The district court found that Bynum failed to satisfy the provisions of NRS 136.240(3) concerning lost wills because Bynum could not prove the alleged lost will had been in actual physical existence at the time of the decedent’s death.”

In Re: Est. of Scheide, Jr., 2020 NV 84 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 48× “A copy of Theodore's executed will existed, and St. Jude provided affidavits of proof of lost will from the attorney who drafted the will and the attorney's assistant.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 136.240(3) — 3 cases

Howard Hughes Med. Inst. v. Gavin, 621 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1980). “(a) that alleged declarations of the testator may be considered testimony of one of the two credible witnesses required under NRS 136.240 to prove the contents of a lost will; .”

Est. of Irvine v. Doyle, 710 P.2d 1366 (Nev. 1985). “The district court found that Bynum failed to satisfy the provisions of NRS 136.240(3) concerning lost wills because Bynum could not prove the alleged lost will had been in actual physical existence at the time of the decedent’s death.”

In Re: Est. of Scheide, Jr., 2020 NV 84 (Nev. 2020). “A copy of Theodore's executed will existed, and St. Jude provided affidavits of proof of lost will from the attorney who drafted the will and the attorney's assistant.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 136.240(5) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 136.240(5)(b) — 1 case

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.