## Facts

- In 2002, Claire Linthicum-Cobb executed a will and a revocable living trust, naming herself trustee and reserving the unrestricted power to revoke or amend during her lifetime without notice to beneficiaries.
- The 2002 trust designated Ernette and Myrna Linthicum as primary beneficiaries upon Cobb’s death and as successor trustees upon Cobb’s death or incapacity; the trust would become irrevocable at Cobb’s death.
- In 2004, Cobb executed a new will and amended/restated the trust, replacing Ernette and Myrna as successor trustees with Arnold Rudi and allegedly making Rudi the sole beneficiary; Cobb retained the power to revoke or amend.
- Rudi and a private entity petitioned for co-guardianship of Cobb, alleging possible mental impairment; Rudi later withdrew, and the court appointed the private entity as guardian after findings of self-neglect and potential self-harm.
- Ernette and Myrna filed a civil action seeking cancellation of the amended trust and/or a constructive trust, alleging incapacity and undue influence, including a confidential relationship and Rudi’s participation in executing the amendment.
- Rudi moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that beneficiaries’ interests in a revocable trust during the settlor’s life are merely expectancies.
- Ernette and Myrna argued Nevada statutes conferred standing and alternatively sought appointment as Cobb’s guardians ad litem to litigate on her behalf.

## Issues

1. Whether remainder beneficiaries of a revocable inter vivos trust have standing, during the settlor’s lifetime, to challenge the settlor’s amendments on incapacity or undue influence grounds.
2. Whether the district court erred by denying the beneficiaries’ request to be appointed guardians ad litem as a means to contest the amendments.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing.
- The court held that beneficiaries of a revocable inter vivos trust generally lack standing to challenge the settlor’s lifetime amendments while the settlor is alive and retains the power to revoke.
- The court held that challenges to the settlor’s capacity to amend a revocable trust during life must proceed through Nevada’s guardianship procedures (NRS Chapter 159), rather than through a direct beneficiary lawsuit.
- The court affirmed denial of the motion to appoint Ernette and Myrna as guardians ad litem.

## Legal Principles

- A beneficiary’s interest in a revocable inter vivos trust during the settlor’s lifetime is contingent at most and functionally an expectancy when the settlor retains the power to revoke or amend.
- Because the beneficiary’s interest is not vested while the trust remains revocable, remainder beneficiaries generally lack standing to contest lifetime trust amendments.
- Allegations that the settlor lacked capacity (or was subject to improper influence affecting capacity) must be addressed through the statutory guardianship process, which provides the mechanism for determining incapacity and appointing a representative to act for the settlor.
- A guardians-ad-litem appointment within a beneficiary-initiated trust contest cannot be used to bypass the guardianship statutory scheme, particularly where guardianship protections have been pursued through the established process.

## Conclusion

The court held that remainder beneficiaries of a revocable trust cannot sue during the settlor’s lifetime to invalidate trust amendments because their interests are contingent and subject to revocation; disputes about the settlor’s capacity must be pursued through Nevada’s guardianship statutes, and the denial of a guardians-ad-litem appointment in the trust action was proper.


Linthicum v. Rudi, 148 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2006)