The scenario describes a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.085, addresses holographic wills. A holographic will is valid in Nevada if it is entirely in the handwriting of the testator. The question hinges on whether the presence of a witness signature invalidates the will, given the holographic nature. NRS 133.085 states that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is not invalidated by the fact that it is not witnessed. Therefore, the witness’s signature, while not required for a holographic will, does not render it invalid. The core principle is that the holographic nature itself satisfies the primary requirement for validity in this specific category of wills under Nevada law, irrespective of whether it was also executed with testamentary formalities that are not mandated for holographic wills. The will is therefore valid as a holographic will.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. It does not require any witnesses. This is a key distinction from a formal attested will, which requires witnesses. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills. For a will to be considered holographic, every material provision, including the disposition of property and the appointment of an executor, must be in the testator’s handwriting. The testator’s signature, also in their handwriting, is sufficient to authenticate the will. The absence of any attestation clause or witness signatures is permissible for a valid holographic will in Nevada. Therefore, a document that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by them, even if it lacks witnesses or an attestation clause, can be admitted to probate as a valid holographic will in Nevada.

Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.040, outlines the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s express direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The scenario describes a will signed by the testator, Elias Thorne, and then by two witnesses, Ms. Albright and Mr. Davies, in Elias’s presence. This execution method strictly adheres to the statutory requirements for a valid will in Nevada. The fact that one witness, Ms. Albright, was also a beneficiary under the will does not automatically invalidate the will itself in Nevada. While a gift to an attesting witness may be voidable under certain circumstances (NRS 133.050), the will’s validity is contingent upon proper execution, which was met here. The absence of a self-proving affidavit, while a convenience for probate, does not render the will invalid if the attestation requirements are otherwise satisfied. Therefore, the will is valid.

Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.040, outlines the requirements for a valid holographic will. A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. The key element here is that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any part of the will is printed or typed, even if the testator signs it, it generally fails to meet the statutory requirements for a holographic will in Nevada. The scenario describes a will that is primarily handwritten but includes a typed beneficiary designation. This typed portion, even if the testator intended it to be part of the will, renders the document invalid as a holographic will under Nevada law. Therefore, the will would likely be considered invalid, and the estate would pass according to the laws of intestacy or a prior valid will. The question tests the strict interpretation of Nevada’s holographic will statute, emphasizing the requirement for the entire document to be in the testator’s handwriting.

In Nevada, a trust that provides for the accumulation of income or the preservation of capital for a beneficiary beyond the typical duration of a life estate, and which is not solely for charitable purposes, may be subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP). The RAP generally voids interests that vest too remotely in the future. Nevada has adopted a wait-and-see approach to the RAP, codified in NRS 111.105, and has also enacted a statutory perpetuity period of 360 years for non-charitable trusts (NRS 163.550). This means that even if an interest might vest beyond the common-law period, it will be valid if it actually vests within 360 years from the creation of the trust. The concept of “vesting” refers to the point at which a beneficiary’s interest in the trust becomes certain and ascertainable, meaning there is no condition precedent to their receiving the property other than the natural termination of prior estates. In this scenario, the trust is established for the benefit of Elias’s descendants, with distributions to occur upon the death of his last surviving grandchild. The critical point for vesting is when the identity of all beneficiaries who will take under the trust is fixed. This occurs at the death of the last surviving grandchild, as at that moment, the class of beneficiaries (Elias’s descendants then living) is definitively determined, and their entitlement is no longer subject to any contingency other than the trust’s termination. Therefore, the interest vests at that specific point in time.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.040 outlines the requirements for a valid holographic will. A holographic will is one that is entirely in the handwriting of the testator. It does not require any witnesses. The critical element here is that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any portion of the will is typed or printed, it fails to meet the statutory definition of a holographic will, even if the testator signed it. In this scenario, while the testator’s signature and the statement about the distribution of assets are in their handwriting, the designation of the executor and the specific instructions for the funeral arrangements are typed. This typed portion renders the entire document invalid as a holographic will under Nevada law. Therefore, the will would be subject to the intestacy laws of Nevada, as there is no valid will to govern the distribution of the estate. The concept of substantial compliance, which might save a will with minor technical defects in some jurisdictions, is not generally applicable to the fundamental requirement of being entirely in the testator’s handwriting for a holographic will in Nevada.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) govern the administration of estates, including the priority of claims against an estate. NRS 147.190 establishes the order in which debts and expenses of a deceased person are paid from the estate. This statute outlines a specific hierarchy, ensuring that certain obligations are satisfied before others. The general order of payment for claims against a decedent’s estate in Nevada, as per NRS 147.190, is as follows: first, expenses of administration; second, funeral expenses; third, the expenses of the last sickness; fourth, taxes; fifth, debts having preference under the laws of the United States; sixth, judgments against the deceased; seventh, all other debts not enumerated. In this scenario, the debt owed to the supplier for medical equipment used during the last illness of the decedent falls under the category of expenses of the last sickness. This category generally takes precedence over unsecured debts, such as those owed to a general supplier for services or goods unrelated to the last illness, and certainly over a debt that arose after the decedent’s death, such as the property taxes that became due and payable after the estate was opened. Therefore, the supplier’s claim for medical equipment would be paid before the property taxes that accrued post-death.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.040 outlines the requirements for a valid holographic will. A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. The statute is strict: if any part of the will is not in the testator’s handwriting, or if it is not properly dated and signed, it will generally be deemed invalid as a holographic will. However, Nevada law also permits the incorporation by reference of certain documents into a will, even if those documents are not holographic themselves, provided specific conditions are met. NRS § 133.070 addresses the incorporation by reference of writings not executed with testamentary formalities. For a document to be incorporated by reference, it must be in existence at the time of the execution of the will, the will must indicate an intention to incorporate the document, and the document must be described in the will with sufficient certainty to identify it. In the scenario presented, the testator’s will is holographic, meaning it meets the handwriting, dating, and signing requirements. The will then makes specific reference to a separate, typed letter that details the distribution of specific personal property. Since the letter was in existence at the time the holographic will was executed, and the will clearly identifies it and expresses the intent to incorporate its contents regarding the distribution of personal property, the letter can be incorporated by reference into the holographic will. This means the terms of the letter, as it existed at the time the will was executed, will be treated as part of the will for the purpose of distributing the specified personal property. The holographic nature of the will itself is sufficient for its validity, and the incorporation by reference allows the typed letter to supplement its dispositive provisions for the personal items.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills. This statute requires that the will be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. There is no requirement for witnesses for a holographic will to be valid in Nevada. The core principle is that the document must clearly demonstrate the testator’s intent to dispose of their property upon death and be entirely in their own hand. This exception to the general witness requirement for wills is intended to accommodate situations where a testator might not have access to witnesses but still wishes to make their testamentary intentions known in their own hand. The statute’s simplicity in this regard is crucial for its validity.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills. For a holographic will to be valid in Nevada, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. This requirement is strictly construed. Even a single printed word, if not part of the testator’s handwriting, can invalidate the will. The signature must also be the testator’s. The purpose of this strict requirement is to prevent fraud and ensure the document truly reflects the testator’s intent, as the handwriting itself serves as a form of authentication. If any portion of the will, including the dispositive provisions or the identification of beneficiaries, is not in the testator’s handwriting, the entire will is generally considered invalid as a holographic will. While other types of wills might be valid even with typed portions if properly witnessed, the unique nature of a holographic will relies entirely on the testator’s own script for its validity. Therefore, the presence of typed words, unless they are part of a printed letterhead that is clearly not intended to be dispositive or part of the testamentary act itself, will defeat the holographic nature of the will.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. For a holographic will to be valid, it must be signed by the testator and be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that “A will which is entirely in the handwriting of the testator is not invalid because it is not witnessed.” This statute is crucial because it exempts holographic wills from the witness requirements that apply to other types of wills in Nevada. The key elements for validity are the complete handwritten nature of the document and the testator’s signature. The absence of witnesses is not a defect if these conditions are met. The scenario describes a document entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, which directly aligns with the statutory definition and requirements for a valid holographic will in Nevada.

The scenario involves a Nevada resident, Elias Thorne, who passed away with a holographic will. Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.090, addresses holographic wills. A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. The key requirement is that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting. If a material provision of the will, such as the disposition of the primary asset (the lakeside property) or the identity of the executor, is not in the testator’s handwriting, the will is generally not considered holographic and may be invalid or subject to probate as if no will existed, unless it can be proven as a valid attested will. In this case, while the signature and most of the text are in Elias’s hand, the typed addition of “and my antique watch collection” by his niece, even if done with his oral consent, fundamentally alters the will’s holographic nature. This addition is a material provision and is not in Elias’s handwriting. Therefore, the will, as presented with the typed addition, would likely be deemed invalid as a holographic will in Nevada. The proper course of action would be for the niece to file the document with the court, and the court would then determine its validity, potentially treating it as an intestate estate or, if other formalities were met (which is not indicated), as an attested will. However, based strictly on the holographic will statute, the typed portion renders it invalid in that specific form.

In Nevada, when a testator creates a will, the document must meet specific statutory requirements to be valid. These requirements are primarily outlined in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). For a will to be considered valid, it generally must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two witnesses. The testator must have the testamentary capacity to understand the nature of the act of making a will, the nature and extent of their property, and the natural objects of their bounty. The witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. However, Nevada law also recognizes holographic wills, which are entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, as valid without the need for witnesses. This exception acknowledges that individuals may draft wills in their own hand without immediate access to legal formalities. The scenario presented involves a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, thus satisfying the requirements for a holographic will in Nevada. Therefore, the will is valid.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.040 outlines the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The purpose of these witnessing requirements is to prevent fraud and undue influence by ensuring that the testator’s intent is genuine and that the document reflects their wishes. If these formalities are not met, the will may be deemed invalid, and the estate would then pass according to the laws of intestacy in Nevada, as governed by NRS Chapter 131. The concept of a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and requires no witnesses, is not recognized in Nevada, unlike in some other states. Therefore, any deviation from the statutory requirements for a formal written will can jeopardize its validity. The scenario presented requires an understanding of these foundational principles of Nevada will execution.

Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.040, outlines the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two competent witnesses, each of whom signs the will in the presence of the testator. This attestation signifies that the witnesses observed the testator sign the will or acknowledge their signature, and that they themselves signed the will in the testator’s presence. Holographic wills, which are written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, are an exception to the witness requirement in Nevada, as per NRS 133.090. However, the scenario presented describes a typed document, which necessitates compliance with the general attestation rules. The absence of a witness signature, or a witness signing outside the testator’s presence, would render that portion of the will, or the entire will if critical, invalid. The question hinges on whether the witness’s signing occurred in the testator’s presence, which is a fundamental requirement for due execution of a non-holographic will in Nevada. Without this crucial element being satisfied, the will’s validity is compromised.

In Nevada, a trust can be modified or terminated under specific circumstances. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 164.025 governs the modification and termination of trusts. Generally, a trust can be terminated if all beneficiaries consent and the court finds that the termination is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. Alternatively, a trust can be terminated if its purpose becomes unlawful, impossible, or has been fulfilled. A trustee can also petition the court for modification or termination if circumstances not anticipated by the settlor have arisen, and modification or termination will further the purposes of the trust. In this scenario, the trust’s purpose was to provide for the settlor’s lifelong care and then distribute the remainder. Since the settlor has passed away and the care has been fully provided for, the trust’s primary purpose has been fulfilled. The remaining assets are to be distributed to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the trust can be terminated. The question asks about the conditions under which the trust can be terminated. Given that the settlor is deceased and the purpose of providing lifelong care has been fulfilled, the trust can be terminated.

In Nevada, when a testator creates a holographic will, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. There is no requirement for witnesses for a valid holographic will under Nevada law. The scenario describes a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Therefore, it meets the statutory requirements for a valid holographic will in Nevada, irrespective of the presence or absence of witnesses. The key is the complete handwritten nature and the signature. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 133 governs wills. Specifically, NRS 133.090 addresses holographic wills, stating they are valid if the signature and material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. The absence of witnesses is permissible for such wills.

Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.040, outlines the requirements for a valid holographic will. A holographic will is one that is entirely in the handwriting of the testator. This means that every material provision of the will, including the disposition of property and the identification of beneficiaries, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. If any part of the will is printed or typed, and that part is essential to the meaning or intent of the will, it may render the entire will invalid as a holographic will. However, if the printed or typed portions are merely surplusage or do not affect the essential dispositive provisions, and the core testamentary intent is clear and in the testator’s hand, it might still be considered valid. The key is the entirety of the *material* provisions being in the testator’s handwriting. In this scenario, the beneficiaries and the specific assets are clearly identified in handwriting. The date, while important, is a separate element from the dispositive provisions. The printed letterhead of the stationery does not invalidate the will as long as it does not form part of the essential testamentary provisions and the dispositive clauses themselves are entirely in the testator’s hand. Therefore, the will is valid as a holographic will in Nevada.

In Nevada, when a testator executes a will, they must possess testamentary capacity. This means the testator must understand the nature of the act of making a will, the nature and extent of their property, and the natural objects of their bounty (their closest relatives). The scenario describes Elara, who, at the time of executing her will, was suffering from advanced dementia. Her inability to comprehend the extent of her considerable real estate holdings in Reno and her significant investment portfolio, and her failure to recognize her estranged son, Kael, as a natural object of her bounty, demonstrates a lack of testamentary capacity. Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.020, requires a testator to be of sound mind to execute a valid will. Sound mind, in this context, encompasses the aforementioned elements of understanding the act, the property, and the natural objects of bounty. Elara’s condition directly impaired these cognitive functions. Therefore, her will would be considered invalid due to a lack of testamentary capacity at the time of its execution.

The scenario involves a Nevada resident, Elara Vance, who created a will in 2018. Subsequently, she executed a codicil in 2021 that specifically revokes any prior inconsistent provisions in her 2018 will. Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.120, addresses the effect of a codicil on a prior will. A codicil is a supplement or addition to a will, and it generally revokes all prior wills and codicils that are inconsistent with its provisions. However, a codicil does not necessarily revoke the entire prior will unless it explicitly states so or its provisions are so fundamentally contradictory to the entire prior will that no part of the prior will can stand. In this case, the codicil explicitly revokes “any prior inconsistent provisions.” This language indicates that only those parts of the 2018 will that conflict with the 2021 codicil are revoked. The remaining, consistent provisions of the 2018 will remain in effect. Therefore, the 2021 codicil revokes the inconsistent provisions of the 2018 will, but the consistent provisions of the 2018 will are still valid and operative. The question asks what remains in effect. The codicil itself is in effect, and the consistent portions of the 2018 will are also in effect. The inconsistent portions of the 2018 will are revoked by the codicil. Therefore, the operative testamentary plan consists of the 2021 codicil and the consistent provisions of the 2018 will.

In Nevada, a statutory power of attorney (POA) remains effective even if the principal becomes incapacitated, unless the document expressly states otherwise. This is known as a durable power of attorney. The Uniform Power of Attorney Act, adopted in Nevada, presifies that a POA is durable unless it contains a statement indicating that it terminates upon the principal’s incapacity. Therefore, if Eleanor executed a POA appointing her nephew, Silas, as her agent, and did not include any language to the contrary, Silas’s authority to act on her behalf would continue even if Eleanor were to become unable to manage her own affairs. This durability is a key feature designed to ensure continuity of financial and legal management for individuals who may become incapacitated. The law presumes durability for POAs unless specifically rebutted by the principal’s clear intent to the contrary within the document itself. This principle is fundamental to estate planning and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

In Nevada, when a testator revokes a will by making a subsequent will, the revocation is generally effective even if the subsequent will is later revoked. This principle is often referred to as the “revocation by subsequent instrument” rule, which is distinct from revocation by physical act. Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.120, addresses the effect of a subsequent will on prior wills. This statute indicates that a subsequent will can revoke a prior will either expressly or by implication. If a later will is executed with the proper formalities and contains language revoking prior wills, or if it is wholly inconsistent with a prior will, the prior will is revoked. The crucial point is that the act of revoking the prior will is accomplished by the execution of the new, revoking instrument. The subsequent revocation of that new instrument does not revive the original, revoked will unless the testator specifically re-executes the original will or makes a new will that republishes the original will. This is sometimes contrasted with the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, but in this scenario, the initial revocation by the second will is absolute upon its valid execution, irrespective of the second will’s subsequent fate. Therefore, the destruction of the second will, which contained the revocation clause, does not reinstate the first will in Nevada.

In Nevada, the concept of a “holographic will” is governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 133.090. This statute dictates that a will is valid if it is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. No witnesses are required for a holographic will to be valid. The core principle is that the entire testamentary disposition must be in the testator’s handwriting to prevent fraud and ensure the testator’s intent is clearly expressed through their own hand. If any material portion of the will is not in the testator’s handwriting, it may be deemed invalid as a holographic will, potentially requiring it to meet the statutory requirements for attested wills (NRS 133.080), which involve witnesses. The question presents a scenario where a significant portion of the will is typed, with only the signature and a few interlineations being handwritten. This mix of typed and handwritten material, where the typed portion constitutes the bulk of the testamentary disposition, would prevent it from qualifying as a holographic will under Nevada law. Therefore, the validity of the will would depend on whether it meets the requirements for an attested will, which are not described in the provided facts. Without evidence of proper attestation by witnesses, the will as described would likely be considered invalid in Nevada.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills. This statute states that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator is not required to be witnessed. The key elements are that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting, and it must be signed by the testator. If any part of the will is printed or typed, or if it is not signed by the testator, it will not qualify as a holographic will under Nevada law and would likely be considered an invalid will or require proper witnessing under NRS § 133.040. Therefore, a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator is valid in Nevada without witnesses.

The scenario involves a Nevada resident, Ms. Elara Vance, who created a revocable living trust and later executed a will. The key legal principle here is the interplay between a revocable trust and a pour-over will, specifically concerning the disposition of assets not explicitly titled in the trust’s name at the time of the testator’s death. Nevada law, like many jurisdictions, addresses this through statutes that prioritize the will’s instructions for assets not properly transferred to the trust. A pour-over will is designed to transfer any remaining probate assets into a trust upon the testator’s death. In this case, the antique automaton, not having been formally transferred to the Elara Vance Revocable Trust, would be considered a probate asset. The will explicitly directs that all property not otherwise disposed of or already in the trust should be poured over into the trust. Therefore, the will governs the disposition of the automaton, and it will be distributed according to the terms of the Elara Vance Revocable Trust. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 632, concerning trusts, and Chapter 133, concerning wills, provide the framework for such situations. Specifically, NRS 133.040, regarding the execution of wills, and NRS 163.020, concerning the validity of trusts, are relevant. The pour-over provision in the will effectively acts as a mechanism to capture and integrate these non-trust assets into the trust’s management and distribution scheme, ensuring that the testator’s overall intent, as expressed in the trust document, is fulfilled. The will’s validity and its pour-over clause are paramount for the disposition of assets outside the trust corpus at the time of death.

In Nevada, a statutory will, also known as a self-proving will, allows for the testator and witnesses to sign an affidavit before a notary public. This affidavit, when attached to the will, creates a presumption of due execution, meaning the will is considered validly executed without the need for witness testimony in probate court, absent any contest. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 133 governs the execution of wills. Specifically, NRS 133.050 outlines the requirements for a valid will, including being signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by their direction, and being attested to by at least two credible witnesses who sign the will in the testator’s presence. A self-proving affidavit, pursuant to NRS 133.055, is a separate statement by the testator and witnesses, usually notarized, affirming that the will was properly signed and witnessed. This affidavit simplifies the probate process by obviating the need for witnesses to appear in court to testify about the will’s execution. Therefore, a will that includes a properly executed self-proving affidavit is presumed validly executed under Nevada law.

Nevada law, specifically NRS 133.040, governs the requirements for a valid will. A holographic will, meaning one written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require attestation by witnesses in Nevada. This is a significant exception to the general rule for witnessed wills, which must be signed by the testator in the presence of at least two witnesses, who then also sign the will in the testator’s presence. The rationale behind allowing holographic wills without witnesses is that the testator’s handwriting itself serves as proof of authenticity, reducing the risk of fraud. Therefore, if the entire will, including the date and signature, is in the testator’s handwriting, it is valid in Nevada, even without any witnesses.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 explicitly states that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is valid without being witnessed. This statute provides an exception to the general rule that wills must be signed by two witnesses. The key element is that the entire document, including the date and dispositive provisions, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. If any material part of the will is printed or typed, it will not qualify as a holographic will and would likely be considered invalid unless it meets the requirements for a witnessed will under NRS § 133.040. Therefore, for a will to be valid as holographic in Nevada, the entirety of its content must be in the testator’s handwriting.

In Nevada, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 133.090 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that they are valid if the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. This statute does not require witnesses for a holographic will to be valid. The primary purpose of this exception to the witness requirement is to accommodate situations where a testator might be in extremis or unable to procure witnesses, ensuring their final wishes can still be legally recognized. The statute’s focus on the testator’s handwriting for both the signature and the core testamentary provisions is designed to prevent fraud and ensure the document truly reflects the testator’s intent. Therefore, a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, including the signature, is valid in Nevada without any witnesses.

In Nevada, a trust is generally considered irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly permit revocation or modification. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 163.555 outlines the circumstances under which a trust can be modified or revoked. If a trust instrument is silent on the issue of revocation or modification, it is presumed to be irrevocable. However, even for an irrevocable trust, certain statutory provisions allow for modification or termination under specific conditions, such as the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor, or if modification or termination is necessary to achieve the settlor’s tax objectives or to comply with a change in law, provided such action is consistent with the settlor’s intent. The scenario describes a trust established by Ms. Albright where the trust document explicitly states it is irrevocable and does not contain any provisions for revocation or amendment by the settlor. Therefore, Ms. Albright cannot unilaterally revoke or amend the trust. The only potential avenue for change would be if all beneficiaries agreed to a modification, or if a court order permitted it under specific statutory grounds, neither of which is indicated in the prompt.