The Hurdle: Under Nevada common law, a co-owner (Roger) has a right to occupy the property rent-free unless he has "Ousted" the other owners (prevented them from entering).

Our Argument: We argue "Constructive Ouster." By occupying the home exclusively for 9 years and refusing to sell or pay the Trust its share, Roger has effectively excluded the Trust.

Secondary Claim: We also claim "Unjust Enrichment." Roger received a measurable benefit ($100k+ in free rent) at the expense of the Trust. Fairness dictates he must pay it back.

The 4-Year Rule: Nevada law limits debt collection for obligations not in writing (like this oral arrangement) to 4 years. This is why we calculate the debt at ~$43,000 (48 months) rather than the full 9 years. Debt from 2016-2021 is likely legally "stale."

Laches Defense: Roger can argue "Laches"—that you waited too long to complain, implying consent. Action: Sending a demand letter today stops this clock and counters the Laches defense.

If Roger Jr. dies owing the Trust $43,000, we can force the sale of the house to pay that debt before Roger III gets clear title.

Duty to Make Property Productive: Greg has a legal obligation to ensure Trust assets generate income. A $0 return on a $275k asset is a breach of duty.

Duty of Impartiality: Greg cannot favor one beneficiary (Roger) at the expense of others (Eric/Eddie). Allowing free rent violates this.

Consequence: If Greg fails to act, you can sue for "Surcharge"—forcing Greg to pay the lost rent out of his own pocket.

This is the "Nuclear Option." If co-owners cannot agree, the Court will order the property sold. There is no defense against this.

Common Benefit Rule (NRS 39.480): Legal fees for the partition are paid from the sale proceeds before distribution. This means Roger effectively pays half your legal fees to sue him.

Fear: "If Roger dies, the bank will foreclose immediately."

Reality: The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is a federal law that prohibits lenders from enforcing the "Due on Sale" clause when a property transfers to a relative upon death. As long as payments are made, the loan stays.

Use this if Greg's phone call goes well. It frames the issue as "compliance" rather than a fight.

Use this if Roger ignores the call or refuses to cooperate. It creates the legal paper trail for "Ouster."

He breaches his fiduciary duty. You can petition to remove him under NRS 163.115. Furthermore, under NRS 163.160, a Trustee can be held personally liable ("surcharged") if their negligence causes the Trust to lose money. Telling Greg, "I will hold you personally liable for the $43,000 lost rent," is often enough to wake him up.

Under NRS 165.141, a beneficiary can formally demand an account. If the trustee fails to provide it within 60 days, the beneficiary can petition the court for review under NRS 165.143.

If Roger refuses to sell, the Trust can file a "Partition Action" lawsuit under NRS Chapter 39. The court will order the property sold.

The Cost: Legal fees for partition actions are typically considered a "common benefit" under NRS 39.480, meaning they are paid from the sale proceeds *before* distribution. While this costs everyone money (est. $30,000), it is the only way to break a deadlock.

Under NRS 11.190, the Statute of Limitations for an "unwritten contract" or "unjust enrichment" is 4 years. Any rent owed from 2016-2021 is likely considered "stale" and uncollectible by the courts.

Additionally, Roger can argue the defense of Laches, which means "you waited too long to complain, so you consented to it." This is why we focus only on the last 4 years to be safe.

No. The 90-day creditor window only opens when Roger Jr. dies AND notice is published. The transfer to his Living Trust does not trigger this. However, the 4-year Statute of Limitations on back rent is running *right now*. Waiting is still dangerous.

No. A revocable living trust provides zero asset protection against creditors during the grantor's life. If Roger owes the debt personally, his Revocable Trust owes it too. We can sue "Roger Pratt II, Trustee" directly. Even after death, trust assets are liable for the settlor's debts if the probate estate is insufficient.

Technically, no single owner has exclusive rights unless agreed upon. As a beneficiary, you don't hold the deed (the Trust does), but the Trustee (Greg) has an equal legal right to possession as Roger Jr. If Roger locks the Trust out without paying rent, he may be committing "Ouster," which strengthens your legal claim for back rent.

No. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 prevents lenders from enforcing the "Due on Sale" clause when a property transfers to a relative upon death. As long as the monthly payments are made, the loan stays.

Layleen is not on the Deed. If she is living there, she is a guest or unauthorized tenant. This actually helps your legal case for "Unjust Enrichment" because the Trust is subsidizing a non-owner. Important: Any eviction notice must say "And All Occupants" to legally include her.

Yes. Money received as "Rent" (or a settlement for lost rent) is taxable income to the Trust, which flows through to you via a K-1 tax form. Money received as "Inheritance" (the sale of the house itself) is usually tax-free capital gains (due to the step-up in basis). However, paying tax on $43,000 recovered is better than receiving $0 because Roger III kept it all.