Prepared for: Eric Pratt, Trustee
IMPORTANT: The transfer to the Trust did NOT start the 90-day countdown. There are two separate timelines you must watch.
This is the 4-year limit to collect back rent. Every day you wait, you lose one day of rent from 4 years ago.
Action: Sue/Demand Payment NOW.
This is the window to file a claim against his estate (NRS 164.025). It starts when Roger Jr. dies AND notice is published.
Action: Watch for Notice.
Adjust settings to see how your payout changes.
Click a path to see the outcome.
When Roger Jr. dies, you have 90 days from the "Notice to Creditors" to file. Here is exactly where to look in Clark County.
95% of probate/trust notices in Clark County are published here.
Visit Website ↗Search for "Roger Pratt" to see if a Probate case has been opened.
Search Records ↗Check for "Affidavit of Death" or "Trustee's Deed" recorded against the property.
Search Documents ↗The Situation: The Trust owns 50% of the property. Your brother Roger Jr. owns 50%.
The Strategy: It is now "Greenery Trust vs. Roger Pratt II Trust." Because you do not inherit Roger's share, any rent debt we forgive is a direct gift to Roger III. Eric must aggressively claim the back rent debt from his new Trust.
Every month Roger stays without paying market rent, the Trust loses value. Based on your inputs:
| Fair Market Rent | $2,600 / mo |
| Trust's Share (50%) | $1,300 / mo |
| Less: Roger Pays Trust's Mortgage Share | -$400 / mo |
| NET MONTHLY LOSS to Trust | $900 / mo |
| Annual Loss | $10,800 / yr |
Assuming mortgage payoff of $80,000 and 8% closing costs.
| Financial Outcome | If We Do Nothing (Passive) | If We Claim Debt (Aggressive) |
|---|---|---|
| Roger's Trust (Roger III) Gets | $213,000 | $170,000 (-$43k debt) |
| Greenery Trust Gets | $213,000 | $256,000 (+$43k debt) |
| YOUR SHARE (Eric) | $53,250 | $64,000+ |
*Aggressive scenario assumes we successfully collect 4 years of back rent (approx $43,200). Even if we settle for less, the threat creates leverage.
This section outlines every legal concept applicable to your case. Use these terms when speaking with Roger to demonstrate you understand the law.
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.
Argument: Silence ≠ Permission. Greg's failure to collect rent was negligence, not an affirmative grant of benefit. Therefore, the default rule (pay for what you use) should apply.
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: The Trustee 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: The Trustee cannot favor one beneficiary (Roger) at the expense of others (Eric/Eddie). Allowing free rent violates this.
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.
Before you can deal with the title company, banks, or Roger, the public record must reflect your authority. (See Section 11 for details on this document).
Now that you are Trustee, the demand comes from you. See Section 9 for templates.
Use this checklist to decide if you need to hire counsel right now:
Use this to open a dialogue and frame the issue as "compliance" rather than a fight.
Use this if Roger ignores you or refuses to cooperate. It creates the legal paper trail for "Ouster."
You successfully navigated Article IX, Section 3(A) of the Trust. Because Jerri had the "power to appoint an alternate Successor Trustee," her appointment of Eric bypassed any need for court intervention or a corporate bank trustee.
Also known in Nevada as a Certification of Trust (NRS 164.400) or an Affidavit of Successor Trustee, this is essentially your "Trustee ID Badge."
Banks, title companies, and courts do not want to read a 53-page private trust document. Instead, they require a short, notarized summary that legally certifies exactly who is currently in charge without revealing private beneficiary details.
You must record this Certificate, along with the signed resignations and death certificates, against the property title. This legally links your name to the 6920 Greenery Ct deed so you can sell it or secure a lien.
You will hand this Certificate and the Trust's EIN to the bank manager to open a checking account in the Trust's name to hold the $43,000 or sale proceeds.
You will attach a copy of this Certificate to your Demand Letters to Roger Jr. so he knows you hold absolute legal authority. The Title/Escrow company will also absolutely require it to close any sale.
Eric is okay with Roger Jr. living in the property, provided the financial bleeding stops. This is the "Stay & Pay" strategy.
Roger signs a standard residential lease for the Trust's 50% interest.
Rent: $1,300/month (50% of market value).
Benefit: The Trust finally gets cash flow.
The Core Rule: Generally, No, not while Roger is there and consenting.
Instead of physical eviction, we use Financial Pressure.
A plain English breakdown of the 2003 Roger & Esther Pratt Living Trust and how it affects this specific conflict.
When the first parent died, the Trust split into two parts: "Survivor's Trust A" and "Family Trust B."
Section 3: Directs the Trustee to divide assets into shares for the surviving children.
Section 5: Explicitly states that if a child dies *before* receiving their full share, their remaining share is distributed to the "Grantors' then living children."
This section authorizes the Trustee to "permit any person having interest in the Trust to occupy any real property... rent free."
Section 3(A): Names Jerri Pratt as the specific successor to Greg.
Yes. The requirement for a Bank/Corporate Trustee in Article IX only applies if the beneficiaries vote to fill a vacancy. Because Jerri Pratt had the specific power to appoint her own successor, she appointed Eric directly, bypassing the corporate requirement entirely.
Yes. Article VIII, Section 11 allows the Trustee to *permit* rent-free living, but it implies an active decision. If Greg never formally granted this in writing, you can argue that Roger was there by negligence, not permission. This strengthens the argument that Roger was "Unjustly Enriched" because he never received a formal grant of benefit.
Since Greg resigned, this is a moot point. However, if he hadn't, he would be breaching his fiduciary duty. We could have petitioned 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.
Now that Eric is Trustee, he *controls* the accounting. However, under NRS 165.141, any beneficiary can formally demand an account from the acting Trustee.
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 and now Trustee, Eric 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.
Subject: Fiduciary Risk Assessment for 6920 Greenery Ct
ATTENTION: GREG PRATT, TRUSTEE
The Law: Under NRS 163.160, a Trustee is personally liable ("Surcharge") for losses caused by failing to make trust property productive.
Roger Jr. moved his share to the "Roger Pratt II Revocable Trust."
This confirms his 50% share goes to his heirs (Roger III), NOT the Greenery Trust.
The Breach: By failing to collect rent from Roger's Trust, the Greenery Trust is actively subsidizing Roger III and Layleen at the expense of the actual beneficiaries (Greg, Eddie, Eric).
To eliminate Trustee liability, we must offer Roger Jr. three choices:
If the conflict of interest with your brother prevents you from enforcing the Trust's rights, you must protect yourself by choosing one of these paths immediately: