IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ANN L. GRALNICK, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

SUSAN ROWE-GRALNICK, 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE 

OF ALAN GRALNICK, 

Resnondent. 

No. 67928 

FILED 

MAY 1 2 2016 

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND 

This is an appeal from a post-divorce decree order concerning 

distribution of life insurance proceeds following a remand from this court. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; 

Robert Teuton, Judge. 

Appellant Ann Gralnick and her former husband Alan 

Gralnick were married for 33 years and had three children together. 

During their marriage, they created the Gralnick Family Trust and Alan 

procured a life insurance policy with a face amount of $466,000, listing the 

beneficiary as "Ann Gralnick, Trustee, or her successor or successors, 

under the Gralnick Family Trust Agreement dated August 30, 1990." Ann 

and Alan were divorced in 2007 and Alan remarried respondent. Under 

the divorce decree, Alan was required to pay Ann $6,500 monthly in 

spousal support for 84 months and maintain a life insurance policy on his 

life for the amount of his outstanding spousal support obligation. Instead 

of obtaining a new life insurance policy, Alan maintained the preexisting 

life insurance policy. When Alan died in 2011, his outstanding spousal 

support obligation to Ann was $235,000. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ep 11 
The district court awarded Ann the $235,000 she was owed in 

spousal support, but awarded the remaining life insurance proceeds to 

respondent. This court reversed the award of the remaining proceeds and 

remanded the matter to the district court to determine the owner and 

beneficiary of the life insurance policy considering that the policy listed 

the beneficiary as "Ann Gralnick, Trustee, or her successor or successors, 

under the Gralnick Family Trust Agreement dated August 30, 1990." On 

remand, the district court concluded that the remaining insurance 

proceeds were Alan's separate property and should be awarded to his 

estate. 

As a threshold matter, we conclude that the district court did 

not violate the law of the case doctrine when it concluded that NRS 

687B.260 and Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Hussey, 595 N.E.2d 942 (Ohio 

1992) were inapplicable to give Ann a right to the proceeds. This court did 

not specifically provide that they were applicable, but instead directed the 

court to consider the effect of NRS 687B.260 on remand and cited to Aetna 

for support. See Office of State Eng'r v. Curtis Park Manor Water Users 

Ass'n, 101 Nev. 30, 32, 692 P.2d 495, 497 (1985) (providing that "Nile 

doctrine of the law of the case provides that where an appellate court 

states a principle of law in deciding a case, that rule becomes the law of 

the case, and is controlling both in the lower court and on subsequent 

appeals, as long as the facts are substantially the same"). Thus, Ann's 

argument in this regard is without merit. 

Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court abused its 

discretion in concluding that the remaining insurance proceeds belonged 

to Alan's estate under what appears to be an equitable lien theory. See 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 428, 245 P.3d 

535, 538 (2010) (providing that this court will review a district court's 

grant of an equitable remedy for an abuse of discretion). The life 

insurance policy named the Family Trust as the beneficiary. While Ann 

and Alan agreed that the life insurance policy at issue would be 

substituted for the insurance policy that Alan was required to maintain 

under the divorce decree to ensure Ann received her spousal support after 

Alan's death, there is not clear evidence that Alan intended the remaining 

life insurance proceeds to go to his estate instead of the Family Trust. See 

Commercial Credit Corp. u. Matthews, 77 Nev. 377, 386, 365 P.2d 303, 307 

(1961) (requiring clear intention to create an equitable lien). Thus, the 

district court abused its discretion to the extent it concluded that Alan's 

estate had an equitable lien over the remaining proceeds and we reverse 

the district court's decision. Am. Sterling Bank, 126 Nev. at 428, 245 P.3d 

at 538. 

Therefore, the remaining proceeds must be distributed in 

accordance with the Family Trust's distribution provisions. See NRS 

687B.260(1) (providing that the lawful beneficiary of a life insurance 

policy is entitled to the proceeds from that policy and "avails against the 

creditors and representatives of the insured"). Generally, after divorce, 

trust provisions take effect as if the spouse had predeceased the settlor of 

the trust, and thus, Ann is not entitled to the remaining proceeds. See 

NRS 163.565 (providing that the divorce of a settlor of a revocable inter 

vivos trust "revokes every devise, beneficial interest or designation to 

serve as trustee given by the settlor to the former spouse" unless 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A cie4Dp 
otherwise ordered by the district court); Cal. Prob. Code § 5600(c) (West 

2002). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

J. 

Saitta 

Piekodtu, 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Moran Brandon Bendavid Moran 

The Abrams & Mayo Law Firm 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A e