Forum Fortified: The Power and Procedure of In Rem Jurisdiction in Nevada Trust Law

By Alan Freer and Jeffrey Luszeck

Conflicts of laws in trust proceedings have become increasingly prevalent. Due to portability of trusts and favorable jurisdictions such as Nevada, it is no longer uncommon for an out-of-state resident to have a Nevada trust. One strategic tool to resolve conflicts of laws in trust proceedings in Nevada is in rem jurisdiction—a mechanism that provides Nevada courts legal control over trust property and binds all parties with an interest in a trust. Knowing when, why, and how to secure in rem jurisdiction in Nevada can make trust administration more efficient and secure.

What is in rem jurisdiction?

Like most states, Nevada distinguishes between in personam (personal) and in rem (property-based) jurisdiction. In trust cases, in rem jurisdiction allows the court to make binding decisions concerning a trust, including trust property, administration, and interested parties.

How to secure in rem jurisdiction

In Nevada, upon petition of a trustee, settlor, or beneficiary of a trust, a Nevada district court shall assume jurisdiction of a trust as a proceeding in rem unless: (1) another court has already properly assumed continuing jurisdiction in rem in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction; and (2) the Nevada district court determines that it is not appropriate for the district court to assume jurisdiction under the circumstances. See NRS 164.010(1).

A petition under NRS § 164.010 must provide notice to all interested parties as defined in NRS 132.185. See NRS § 155.010, NRS § 164.037. Because a trust proceeding under NRS § 164.010 is considered an in rem proceeding, once the court assumes jurisdiction of a trust, its orders are binding on all interested parties, which can include beneficiaries, creditors, trustees, and other parties whose interests relate to the trust assets, even if they are not physically present or individually served—so long as proper notice is given. See NRS § 164.030(4).

When to seek in rem jurisdiction

In rem jurisdiction should be sought early in trust administration, particularly when an interested person wishes to have Nevada as the controlling jurisdiction over any administrative matters, anticipates litigation or disputes, or the trustee needs court guidance before taking certain actions.

Proactively assuming in rem jurisdiction before any controversy arises gives the Nevada court exclusive authority over the trust “as of the date of the filing of the petition” to assume jurisdiction. See NRS § 164.010(5)(a). This prevents other state or federal courts from intervening under the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine, which holds that only the first court to assert control over the trust’s res (i.e., property) retains jurisdiction.

Why in rem jurisdiction matters

There are multiple benefits to securing in rem jurisdiction, which include:

1. Legal finality: Court orders are binding on all interested persons, including future claimants, reducing the risk of later challenges.
2. Jurisdictional shield: Other courts cannot interfere once Nevada has jurisdiction over the trust assets. This protects the trust from parallel or conflicting rulings in different jurisdictions.
3. Trustee protection: Trustees can petition for instructions or declaratory relief under NRS 153.031 or NRS 30.040, minimizing liability and uncertainty.
4. Continuing oversight: Once jurisdiction is granted, the court retains authority until released by petition. This allows jurisdiction to be maintained in Nevada and future matters to be resolved efficiently.
5. Creditor resolution: Creditors seeking to enforce judgments against the trust must do so in the Nevada court, streamlining proceedings.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, potential downsides to securing in rem jurisdiction in Nevada include:

1. Personal jurisdiction over trustees: Confirmed trustees are subject to Nevada’s personal jurisdiction, which may be undesirable in certain cases.
2. Public docket: While trust documents and sensitive information can be filed under seal, redacted, or lodged in camera pursuant to NRS 164.041 and 699A.256, this can be filed as a “Doe” proceeding. However, under NRS 164.041, the media or others can move to unseal for cause shown. Should confidential information be required to be disclosed, public access is limited—information is not indexed by search engines and must be searched directly on the court’s website.
3. Creditor forum: Creditors can pursue claims within the trust proceeding itself—typically a benefit to trustees and beneficiaries, but a consideration for risk-averse trustees.

Conclusion

Proactive use of in rem jurisdiction in Nevada provides trustees and beneficiaries with powerful tools for legal clarity, efficiency, and control. For general practitioners advising clients on trust matters, securing in rem jurisdiction early is often the best strategy to ensure smooth administration and prevent jurisdictional conflicts, which can be leveraged to their clients’ advantage.

About the author

Alan D. Freer and Jeffrey P. Luszeck are members of Solomon, Dwiggins, Freer & Steadman, Ltd., where they focus their practice primarily on trust and estate litigation. Mr. Luszeck serves as co-chair of the legislative committee for the probate and trust section of the State Bar of Nevada.

About the article

This article was originally published in the Communiqué (May 2025), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2025/communique-may-2025/. The printed magazine was mailed to CCBA members on April 30, 2025.

The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.

© 2025 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.