NRS
166.120 Restraints on alienation; exclusive jurisdiction of court.
1. A spendthrift trust as defined in this
chapter restrains and prohibits generally the assignment, alienation,
acceleration and anticipation of any interest of the beneficiary under the
trust by the voluntary or involuntary act of the beneficiary, or by operation
of law or any process or at all. The trust estate, or corpus or capital
thereof, shall never be assigned, aliened, diminished or impaired by any
alienation, transfer or seizure so as to cut off or diminish the payments, or
the rents, profits, earnings or income of the trust estate that would otherwise
be currently available for the benefit of the beneficiary.
2. Payments by the trustee to the
beneficiary, whether such payments are mandatory or discretionary, must be made
only to or for the benefit of the beneficiary and not by way of acceleration or
anticipation, nor to any assignee of the beneficiary, nor to or upon any order,
written or oral, given by the beneficiary, whether such assignment or order be
the voluntary contractual act of the beneficiary or be made pursuant to or by
virtue of any legal process in judgment, execution, attachment, garnishment,
bankruptcy or otherwise, or whether it be in connection with any contract, tort
or duty. Any action to enforce the beneficiary’s rights, to determine if the
beneficiary’s rights are subject to execution, to levy an attachment or for any
other remedy must be made only in a proceeding commenced pursuant to chapter 153 of NRS, if against a testamentary
trust, or NRS 164.010, if against a
nontestamentary trust. A court has exclusive jurisdiction over any proceeding
pursuant to this section.
3. The beneficiary shall have no power or
capacity to make any disposition whatever of any of the income by his or her
order, voluntary or involuntary, and whether made upon the order or direction
of any court or courts, whether of bankruptcy or otherwise; nor shall the
interest of the beneficiary be subject to any process of attachment issued
against the beneficiary, or to be taken in execution under any form of legal process
directed against the beneficiary or against the trustee, or the trust estate,
or any part of the income thereof, but the whole of the trust estate and the
income of the trust estate shall go to and be applied by the trustee solely for
the benefit of the beneficiary, free, clear, and discharged of and from any and
all obligations of the beneficiary whatsoever and of all responsibility
therefor.
4. The trustee of a spendthrift trust is
required to disregard and defeat every assignment or other act, voluntary or
involuntary, that is attempted contrary to the provisions of this chapter.
[Part 5:86:1939; 1931 NCL § 6880.04]—(NRS A 2009,
802)
Notes of Decisions
Ambrose v. First Nat'l Bank of Nevada, 482 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1971).
· cites it 9× “Furthermore, the only statutory exception to the general rule of anticipation of the trust according to NRS 166.120 exists when the trust does not provide for payments to the beneficiary.”
In Re Shuman, 68 B.R. 290 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1986).
· cites it 6× “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 166.120. The trustee argues that the Plans do not satisfy the requirements of the NSTA because they do not provide for the support, education, and maintenance of the beneficiaries.”
Block v. Moss (In Re Moss), 258 B.R. 405 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2001).
“§ 14-7706(B); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 166.120(3); CAL. PROB. CODE § 15304(a)).”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 16× “Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
In Re: Frei Irrevocable Trust, 2017 NV 8 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 6× “7 The 2009 Legislature amended NRS 166.120 to remove an exception to the spendthrift rule allowing voluntary alienation in specific circumstances inapplicable to this case.”
In Re: Frei Irrevocable Trust, 2017 NV 8 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 3× “7 The 2009 Legislature amended NRS 166.120 to remove an exception to the spendthrift rule allowing voluntary alienation in specific circumstances inapplicable to this case.”
In Re: Christian Fam. Trust, 2020 NV 73 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “3d 646 , 651 (2017) (stating that a valid spendthrift provision prevents a beneficiary's creditors from reaching the trust property (citing NRS 166.120(1))). Accordingly, we conclude that Barney, Ltd.”
In Re: Christian Fam. Trust (Nev. 2020).
“(2017) (stating that a valid spendthrift provision prevents a beneficiary's creditors from reaching the trust property (citing NRS 166.120(1))). Barney, Ltd.'s claim against the trust was therefore proper.”
Snow Covered Capital, LLC v. Fonfa (D. Nev. 2024).
“NRS 166.120(1). 13 Evan argues that the Evan Trust is a Nevada spendthrift trust because Andrew included 14 a spendthrift provision in the trust instrument, Andrew subjected the trust to Nevada law, and 15 the trust contains at least three valid restraints on the voluntary and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 166.120(1) — 6 cases
Ambrose v. First Nat'l Bank of Nevada, 482 P.2d 828 (Nev. 1971).
“Furthermore, the only statutory exception to the general rule of anticipation of the trust according to NRS 166.120 exists when the trust does not provide for payments to the beneficiary.”
In Re: Frei Irrevocable Trust, 2017 NV 8 (Nev. 2017).
“7 The 2009 Legislature amended NRS 166.120 to remove an exception to the spendthrift rule allowing voluntary alienation in specific circumstances inapplicable to this case.”
In Re: Christian Fam. Trust, 2020 NV 73 (Nev. 2020).
“3d 646 , 651 (2017) (stating that a valid spendthrift provision prevents a beneficiary's creditors from reaching the trust property (citing NRS 166.120(1))). Accordingly, we conclude that Barney, Ltd.”
In Re: Frei Irrevocable Trust, 2017 NV 8 (Nev. 2017).
“7 The 2009 Legislature amended NRS 166.120 to remove an exception to the spendthrift rule allowing voluntary alienation in specific circumstances inapplicable to this case.”
In Re: Christian Fam. Trust (Nev. 2020).
“(2017) (stating that a valid spendthrift provision prevents a beneficiary's creditors from reaching the trust property (citing NRS 166.120(1))). Barney, Ltd.'s claim against the trust was therefore proper.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 166.120(2) — 3 cases
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 166.120(3) — 6 cases
Block v. Moss (In Re Moss), 258 B.R. 405 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2001).
“§ 14-7706(B); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 166.120(3); CAL. PROB. CODE § 15304(a)).”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
Klabacka Vs. Nelson c/w 66772, 2017 NV 24 (Nev. 2017).
“Eric's Trust argues that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) I 947 A trust claims were "a proceeding commenced pursuant to" NRS Title 12 (Wills and Estates of Deceased Persons) or Title 13 (Guardianships; Conservatorships; Trusts), which Eric's Trust argues are under the exclusive…”
In Re: Frei Irrevocable Trust, 2017 NV 8 (Nev. 2017).
“7 The 2009 Legislature amended NRS 166.120 to remove an exception to the spendthrift rule allowing voluntary alienation in specific circumstances inapplicable to this 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.