Title: In re Trust Agreement, 23 Partners Trust I
Citation: 138 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 84
Docket Number: 
State: Nevada
Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2022

In re Trust Agreement, 23 Partners Trust I Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary In these appeals relating several statutes and issues regarding the administration of a discretionary trust the Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.1207(1)(b)(5) does not provide a beneficiary whose only distribution in a trust is discretionary with a right to an accounting and that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.180 does not provide a district court with an independent basis on which to order an accounting. At issue on appeal was what disclosures must be made by the trustees to the beneficiaries in the administration of the trust. The district court concluded that the beneficiaries were not entitled to an accounting. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Nevada's trust statutes did not require the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with an accounting because the beneficiaries' sole distribution interests were discretionary; and (2) because the beneficiaries constituted "present" and "vested" beneficiaries, they were entitled to request and receive copies of certain trust instruments, may inspect the books of account and records of financial transactions and may receive an annual tax return, inventory, and accounting under the terms of the trust. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Nevada? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Nevada. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . Opinion Annotation Download PDF 138 Nev., Advance Opinion 311 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT, 23 PARTNERS TRUST I, AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST. MICHAEL T. NEDDER; AND DOUGLAS DELUCA, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, vs. JULIA ANN DELUCA, PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF 23 PARTNERS TRUST I; AND jOANNE S. BRIGGS, AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF ALEXANDER IAN DELIJCA, PRIMARY BENEFICIARY OF 23 :PARTNERS TRUST I, Respondents/Cross-Appellants. No. 82991 BLED DEC 2 2 2022 ELI CLER BY HIEF DEPUTY CLERK Appeal and cross-appeal from a district court order concerning the administration of a trust. Eighth judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Hutchison & Steffen, .P.LLC, and Alexander R. Velto, Reno, and Russel J. Geist and Todd VV. Prall, Las Vegas, for Appellants/Cross-Respondents. Solomon Dwiggins Freer & Steadman, Ltd., and Alex G. LeVeque and :Roberto M. Campos, Las Vegas, for Respondents/Cross-Appellants. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (D) I947A - tio 44 BEFORE THE HERNDON, JJ. SUPREME COURT, HARDESTY, STIGLICH, and OPINION By the Court, STIGLICH, J.: This case involves the administration of a discretionary trust and requires us to determine what disclosures must be made by the trustees to the beneficiaries. In making that determination, we consider both what Nevada's trust statutes compel and what the trust document itself permits. The trust at issue provides the beneficiaries with discretionary distribution interests, granting the trustees sole discretion over the issuance of those distributions. While the trustees have regularly made distributions, the beneficiaries seek information concerning the trust'S finandal administration and a copy of the trust instrument itself. We conclude that Nevada's trust Statutes--in particular NRS 165.1207--do not require the trustees to proVide the beneficiaries with An accounting because the beneficiaries' sole. distribution interests are discretionary. However, because the beneficiaries constitute "present" and "vested" beneficiaries, as those terms are used in the trust, they may request and receive copies of certain trust instruments, may inspect the books of account and records of financial transactions, and on request, may receive an annual ta.x return, inventory, and accounting under the terms of the trust. In. the underlying matter, the district court ordered the tru.stees to provide most of this information and Access but concluded that the beneficiaries were not entitled to an accounting. We affirm the district court as to the materials that it ordered the trustees to deliver, but we reverse its determination that the beneficiaries were not entitled to an accounting. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 I947A The district court also ordered the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with copi.es of all. sections of the trust document concerning the beneficiaries' rights. We agree with the district court that neither Nevada statutes nor the trust instrument require the trustees to provide the beneficiaries with a copy of the entire trust instrument but conclude that the trustees have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in ordering them to produce secti.ons of the trust concerning the beneficiaries' rights. We agree with the trustees, however, that the district court abused its discretion in failing to specify which sections must be provided. We therefore remand and instruct the district court to identify which sections of the trust the trustees must provide to the beneficiaries. BACKGROUND Jon DeLuca and Joanne Briggs married, had two children together (Julia DeLuca and Alexander DeLuca), and later divorced. Thereafter, jon created the 23 Partners Trust I, an irrevocable trust, for the benefit of hi.s children. Michael Nedder is the independent Trustee, and jon's brother, Douglas DeLuca, is the Family Trustee (collectively, Trustees). Jon provided Joanne with information about the trust, including jon's estate plan flowchart, a list of assets, and an audio recording of a meeting between jon. and Michael Nedder regarding jon's estate plan and the trust. After jon passed away, Trustees made distributions from the trust for the care and well-being of Julia and Alexander. Two years later, Julia and Alexander (collectively, Beneficiaries), through Joanne because they were minors, requested detailed information about the trust, including an accounti.ng and a copy of the trust document, which Trustees denied. Beneficiaries petitioned the district court to assume jurisdiction of the the trust, obtain an accounting, and obtain a copy of the trust SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 I947A document.' completely Trustees objected, arguing that the trust provided for discretionary distributions to Beneficiaries and that Beneficiaries were not entitled to receive an accounting or a copy of the trust document. The court concluded that Beneficiaries were not entitled to an accounting but ordered Trustees to provide certain financial information annually, including federa.l tax returns, an inventory of assets, and a summary of financial transactions. The d.istrict court also determined that Beneficiaries were not entitled to receive a copy of the entire trust document but that they were entitled to receive a copy of the specific provisions affecting their rights.2 Trustees appealed, and Beneficiaries cross- appealed. DISCUSSION Trustees argue that neither Nevada law nor the trust instrument entitles Beneficiaries to receive an accounting or a copy of the trust document. Trustees argue that the district court thus erred in ordering them to .provide certain financial information and portions of the trust document. Beneficiaries counter that they are entitled to receive not only the financial information and trust provisions the court ordered released, but also an accounting under NRS 165.180, NRS 165.1207, and the trust itself. Beneficiaries further argue that they are entitled to receive a copy of the entire trust document, rather than only select portions. In 'Julia reached the age of majority during the pendency of the litigation and has joined the action as an adult. Accordingly, the clerk of this court shall amend. the caption on this court's docket so that it is consisten.t with the caption appearing on this opinion. 2The court entered its order after having reviewed a copy of the trust document in camera. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 resolving the issues presented by this appeal, we look first to Nevada's statutes regarding trust accounting before examining the specific terms of the trust at issue today and. the court's discretionary authority to order the trustees to provide copies of the trust document. Nevada statutes do not entitle Beneficiaries to receive an accounting, but the terms of the trust provide for annual accountings Nevada statutes do not require accounting to discretionary-interest beneficiaries Beneficiaries argue that NRS 165.180 empowers the district court to ord.er an accounting of the trust and that they are entitled to an accounting under N.RS 165.1.207. We disagree. We review de novo questions of law, including statutory interpretation. In re Orpheus Tr., 1.24 Nev. 170, 174, 179 P.3d 562, 565 (2008). "When the language of a statute is unambiguous, courts are not 'permitted to look beyond the statute itself when determining its meaning," .id. "Whenever possible, this court will interpret a rule or statute in harmony with other rules and statutes" and will "construe statutes such that no part of the statute is rendered nugatory or turned to mere surplusage." Albios v. Horizon Cmtys., Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 418, 132 P.3d 1022, 1.028 (2006). NRS 165.180 provides that NRS Chapter 165 "does not abridge the power of any court of competent jurisdiction to require testamentary or nontestamentary trustees to fil.e an inventory, to account, to exhibit the trust property, or to give beneficiaries information or the privilege of inspection of trust records and papers, at times other than those prescribed" by statute. It further provides that NRS Chapter 165 does not bar a trustee from accounting voluntarily where not compelled to do so by statute or court order. Id. NRS 165.1207 addresses a trustee's duty to account and excludes SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1947.4 5 discretionary-interest beneficiaries from those entitled to receive an accounting, providing that trustee is not -required to provide an account to a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust while that beneficiary's only interest in the trust estate is a di.scretionary interest, as described in NRS NRS 1.65.1.207(1)(b)(5). 163.4185." Under NRS 163.4185(1)(c), a distribution interest is "[a] discretionary interest if the trustee has discretion to determine whether a distribution should be made, when a distribution should be made and the amount of the distribution." We first consider NRS 1.65.180. By its plain language, this statute acknowledges that NRS Chapter 165 does not exhaustively delineate how a court exercises its powers and fulfills its duties in administering trusts. But recognizing that the chapter "does not abridge" a court's powers regarding these actions at other times does not constitute a grant of authority. Nor does it constitute an independent basis on which Beneficiaries rnay rely for any affirmative relief. We conclude that .Beneficiaries have not shown that relief is warranted on this basis. We next consider NRS 165.1207. All parties agree that the distributions at issue are made at Trustees' discretion, and our review of the trust confirms thi.s view. Accordingly, we conclude that Beneficiaries' interest is a discretionary interest. Beneficiaries argue that this is not their only i.nterest in the trust, relying on the definition of "Nnterest" in. NRS 132.180 to assert that they also have, for example, an interest in a power of appointment. Beneficiaries offer no support for their contention that NRS 132.180, a wills and estates statute, applies here, and their position is unpersuasive. NRS 165.1.207a)(b)(5) specifically refers to the different types of interests described in NRS :1.63.4185. The more reasonable interpretation of NRS 165.1207(1.)(b)(5)'s language, and that which SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (() 1947A or:52/0. 6 harmonizes its meaning with that of NRS 1.63.4185, is that "interest in the trust estate" refers to the distribution interest, defined as either a 'mandatory, support or discretionary interest." See NRS 163.41.55 (defining distribution interest); NRS 163.4-185(1) (providing that distribution interests may be classified as mandatory, support, or discretionary). This construction also gives meaning to the use of "only" in reference to the beneficiary's interest in the trust estate in NRS 165.1207(1)(b)(5), since NRS 163.41.85 recognizes that a trust may contain a combination of types of interests and adm.inistering the directs how those types should be separated in trust. See NRS 163.4185(2)-(3). Accordingly, Beneficiaries were not entitled to receive an accounting under NRS 1.65.1207 and have not shown that relief is appropriate in this regard. The trust provides that Beneficiaries are entitled to review certain trust materials and to annual accountings Having concluded that Beneficiaries are not entitled to an accounting pursuant to Nevada statute, we consider the terms of the trust itself. Beneficiaries argue that they are vested beneficiaries and thus enti.tled to review trust materials and to an accounting. Trustees counter that only vested beneficiaries may receive and review financial information regarding the trust under the trust's terms and that Beneficiaries are not vested because their interest is discretionary. Where the underlying facts are not disputed, as the parties agree is the case here, we review de novo a district court's interpretation of a trust. In re W.N. Connell & Marjorie T. Connell Living Tr., 1.34. Nev. 613, 616, 426 P.3d 599, 602 (2018). We will construe a trust so as to give effect to the grantor's apparent intent. Id. To ascertain the grantor's intent, we apply contract principles, consi.dering the trust as a whole and seeking "the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 IQ 1947A most fair and reasonable interpretation of the trust's language." Id. (internal quotation. inarks omitted). The trust names Atha and Alexander as beneficiaries and directs that its primary purpose is for the use and benefit of the grantor's descendants while reducing or eliminating tax liability.3 The trust declares itself to be irrevocable. On the grantor's death, the trust estate shall be divided into equal shares for each of the grantor's then-living children, and each share shall constitute a separate "exempt family trust."4 The child in whose name the trust stands constitutes its "primary beneficiary," and the separate trusts shall be named "23 Pa.rtners Trust 1" followed by the name of t.he primary beneficiary. The Independent Trustee has sole and unreviewable discretion in making distributions to a primary beneficiary as the Ind.ependent Trustee deems appropriate for the beneficiary's purposes. The trust provides that Trustees are to act as fiduciaries and have absolute discretion :in acting wi.th. respect to trust property and interests. A primary beneficiary who has attained 33 years of age may remove a trustee, so long as a replacement Independent Trustee is a bank or trust company. Section 5.1(C) of the trust provides that, on request by a "present beneficiary," Trustees must promptly deliver "[c]opies of all trust related instruments of amendment, revocation, exercise of power, designation, release, disclaimer, etc., as well as of a Trustee's resignation, removal., appointment and/or acceptance, the original of which shall be recount details regarding trust provisions to provide useful context and set forth the provisions necessary to resolve these appeals. 3We distinction between exempt and nonexempt trusts is not material for our purposes here. 4 The 8 attached hereto." And under § 5.2(A), a trustee shall make the books of account and records of all financial transactions available at reasonable times for inspection by each "presently vested income, principalk} and remainder beneficiary." Further, on request by such a beneficiary, that trustee shall provide an annual federal tax return, starting and ending inventory for the yew..., and an accounting showing all financial transactions that occurred in that period. Trustees shall not, however, provide notice of the existence of the trust to any beneficiary, to the extent concealment is permitted by law. By its terms, as relevant here, the trust provides rights to particular information to a "present beneficiary" and to a "presently vested income, principalt] an.d re.mainder beneficiary." "[B]eneficiary" is statutorily defined as each individual designated as such for a particular trust, and each person entitled to receive distributions for a particular trust is the "primary beneficiary," except where context indicates a different meaning. The trust does not describe when a benefici.ary is vested, though we can construe the grantor's intent in this regard by considering how beneficiaries are discussed throughout the trust. See NRS 163.004(1) (providing that, generally, a trust's terms may settle "the rights and interests of beneficiaries in any manner that is not illegal or against public policy"); Connell Liuing Tr., 13 1. 3 Nev. 350, 362, 956 .P.2d 794, 802 (1.998). A district court's findings of fact will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. Id. at 357, 956 P.2d at 799. Preliminarily, NRS 1.65.1.4.7 ties the right to receive a copy of the trust document to the right to an accounting, providing that, generally, only those beneficiaries entitled to an accounting pursuant to NRS 165.1201-.148 may compel the trustees to provide a copy of the trust document. And because an accounting pursuant to NRS 165.1207 is not warranted, as explained above, we need not reach Beneficiaries' contention that they are entitled to a copy of the trust under NRS 1.65.147. Nevertheless, in petitioning for a copy of the trust, Beneficiaries alleged that they received distributions from the trust that paid for many of their regular expenses but had never been given a copy of the trust and thus did not know its terms, their rights under it, whether the trust was being administered appropriately, or whether their rights under the trust were being violated.. The district court held a hearing, assumed jurisdiction over the trust, concluded that it could not resolve the petition without reviewing the trust itself, and ordered production of the trust instrument for attorneys' eyes only review in chambers. After examining the trust, the di.strict court found that I3eneficiaries had an interest in discretionary distributions from the trust and concluded that they were entitled to know information regarding their rights under the trust. It determined that they were entitled to receive annual disclosures of certain financial information and concluded that, while no provision in the trust required Trustees to produce a copy of the instrument, Beneficiaries should receive the sections of the trust affecting their rights. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1.4. (4)) 1947A We recognize that, while the trust declares that Trustees have absolute, unfettered discretion, this is not so. Although Beneficiaries' interests are discretionary, a court rnay nevertheless review Trustees' exercise of discretion for conduct that is dishonest, is in bad faith, or constitutes willful misconduct. NRS 163.419(1). The district court's finding that Beneficiaries have discretionary interests is supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong. The district court appropriately concluded that Beneficiaries should have access to trust materials in order to safeguard thei.r statutory rights and rights under the trust. Further, the record shows that the di.strict court entertained thorough briefing on the issues and provided the parties with sufficient opportunity to argue their cases. The di.strict court had authority to enter an order concerning the administration of the trust here, and the order evinces a reasoned con.sideration of the issues and claims presented. Accordingly, we conclude that Trustees have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in. ordering them to deliver copies of sections of the trust instrument.6 See 6 We observe that the trust provides that "the Trustee shall not provide notice of the existence of the trust to any beneficiary hereunder," "[n]otwithstanding anything herein to the contrary and to the extent permitted by applicabl.e law." The trust does not offer guidance as to what precisely the grantor intended with this provision, particularly as it appears to conflict with the general rule that trustees must inform beneficiaries regarding the trust. See 'Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 82(1)(a) (2007) (providing that a trustee has a general duty "to inform fairly representative beneficiaries of the existence of the trust, of their status as beneficiaries and their right to obtain further information, and of basic information concerning the trusteeship"). Considering that it is evident that Beneficiaries here already have notice of the existence of the trust, we decline to infer broader consequences from this provision and conclude that a fair and reasonable interpretation under these circumstances reads it to SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 15 (0) 1947A Skender v. .Brunsonbuilt Constr. & Dev. Co., LLC, 122 Nev. 1430, 1435, 148 P.3d 710, 714 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Nevertheless, we agree with Trustees that the district court abused its di.scretion in not specifying which sections Trustees must deliver to Beneficiaries, and we remand for the district court to set forth which specific sections Ben.eficiaries are entitled to receive. See Las Vegas Reviewjournal u. City of Henderson. 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, 500 P.3d 1271, 1278 (2021) (remanding for limited purpose of applying the appropriate test and entering specific findings where the district court order did not do so). We clarify that where a district court acts pursuant to its authority under NRS 1.64.010 and directs a trustee to take a course of action, it should provide sufficient clarity in its mandate as to ensure that there is no confusion as to what steps must be taken. Cf. 1.4'ed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Westland Liberty LLC, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 57, 515 P.3d 329, 337 (2022) (cautioning district courts, in the context of a preliminary injunction, to exercise care to ensure that a mandate provides sufficient guidance as to what specifically must be performed). Insofar as Beneficiaries rely on Matter of Estate of Ella E. Horst Revocable Trust, U/A/.1.) 05/ 21/ 1991, 136 Nev. 755, 761, 478 P.3d 861, 867 (2020), to argue that Trustees were obligated to disclose the entire trust ratber than secti.ons, their reliance is misplaced, as that decision have no force as to a beneficiary who already knows that the trust exists. See Connell Living Tr., 134 Nev. at 61.6, 426 P.3d at 602 (favoring the most fair and reasonable construction in ascertaining the grantor's intent). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 1.6 contemplated whether strict compliance was necessary when a trustee elected to notify beneficiaries pursuant to NRS 164.021 that a revocable trust became irrevocable. That optional disclosure does not bear on whether Trustees must disclose here. CONCLUSION These appeals present an opportunity to clarify several statutes and issues regarding the administration of trusts. We conclude that NRS 165.1207(1)(b)(5) does not provide a beneficiary whose only distribution interest in a trust is discretionary with a right to an accounting and that NRS 165.180 does not provide a district court with an independent basis on which to order an accounting. Whether a beneficiary has a right to an accounting under the terms of a trust, however, turns principally on the language of the trust instrument itself, so as to give force to the grantor's intent. Where a trust provides certain entitlements to "present" or "vested" beneficiaries, the construction of those terms should look to their definitions in the trust instrument first and foremost; in the absence of a specific definition, the construction should consider their usage in the instrument. And we clarify that a district court should provide sufficient specificity in its orders where it directs a trustee to take particular action with respect to the administration of a trust. In the present circumstances, we conclUde that Beneficiaries are entitled to the rights of both "present" and "vested" beneficiaries. We affirm the district court order insofar as it ordered Trustees to deliver annual financial documents and make available for inspection books of account and record.s of financial transactions, but we reverse the order insofar as it denied an accounting. We also affirm the district court order directing Trustees to deliver copies of sections of the trust instrument SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 17 ,()) affecting Beneficiaries' rights but conclude that the failure to specify which sections this entailed constituted an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, on remand, we direct the district court to indicate which sections must be delivered. 444,14-1/ Stiglich We concur: Hardesty 114.rndon SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10) 1947A cier, 1.8 J. Primary Holding The Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.1207(1)(b)(5) does not provide a beneficiary whose only distribution in a trust is discretionary with a right to an accounting and that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.180 does not provide a district court with an independent basis on which to order an accounting. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. In re Trust Agreement, 23 Partners Trust I Primary Holding The Supreme Court held that Nev. Rev. Stat. 165.1207(1)(b)(5) does not provide a beneficiary whose o... Read the full annotations for this case. Webinars You Might Like: Please visit individual webinar pages for more information about CLE accreditation.