CARSON CITY — State Sen. Melanie Scheibel, D‑Las Vegas, opened a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Senate Bill 404, telling the panel she brought the measure “to ensure fairness for Nevadans and to prevent bad actors from utilizing loopholes within the probate statute.”

The measure, sponsored in the Senate on behalf of the Nevada Supreme Court, would revise numerous provisions in Nevada’s probate and trust law, including changes to the Independent Administration Act, increases to threshold amounts for summary and small‑estate procedures, and the addition of an explicit statute of limitations for certain fiduciary‑duty claims.

SB404’s supporters told the committee the bill is primarily cleanup and modernization of the Nevada Revised Statutes in the probate and trust sections and contains targeted substantive changes administrators and probate attorneys say respond to recurring problems in practice. Michelle Rafferty, co‑chair of the Legislative Committee for the Probate and Trust Section of the Nevada State Bar, said the bill “walks through” many technical sections and that several subsections proposed for removal would be pulled back for additional vetting.

The bill would revise procedures for independent administration — a streamlined probate path intended for uncontested estates — to curb misuse by parties who might exploit the simplified process to sell estate property below fair market value. Attorney Kenny Lee explained independent administration’s purpose and limits, saying it allows heirs who agree to avoid a court confirmation sale and related expense but is not intended for contested matters or estates with unknown heirs.

SB404 would also raise threshold amounts: the bill increases the summary administration threshold to $500,000 (previously $300,000) and raises the small‑estate affidavit limit from $100,000 to $150,000. Rafferty described those changes as intended to reduce expense and delay for lower‑value estates.

One substantive addition would put a statute of limitations into Nevada law for claims of breach of fiduciary duty at the negligence standard; Rafferty said this does not affect existing limits for fraud or willful misconduct. Other provisions clarify notice requirements to interested persons, define when Nevada is the proper jurisdiction to administer a trust, update accounting deadlines for trustees, and modernize rules about when distributions to a trust are treated as vested so unnecessary interim trusts need not be created.

Committee members asked about the order of priority for appointment of an administrator, the meaning of the term “other issue” in the bill’s parentage language, and whether minors could serve as administrators. Carly O’Krent, legal counsel, explained “other issue” is intended to mean lineal descendants beyond children and grandchildren (for example, great‑grandchildren). Rafferty and Senator Scheibel told the committee that the statutory appointment priority primarily guides a judge when no family consensus exists and does not prevent families from agreeing to a different appointee.

Rafferty and others indicated sections 13 and 14 (and related sections 15 and 16) would be removed from the bill for further work and that the Legislative Counsel Bureau may make clerical adjustments, such as fixing subsection references. No formal vote on SB404 occurred at the hearing; the sponsor closed the hearing after no public testimony was offered in Carson City or on the call.

The bill drew sustained technical presentation from counsel and probate practitioners and elicited multiple member questions on administration priority, minors, and notice procedures. The committee record closed after the presentations and committee Q&A; senators and witnesses indicated readiness to continue technical refinement outside the hearing.

Looking ahead, supporters said the intent is to reduce administrative costs and time for modest estates while adding guardrails to prevent predatory uses of simplified probate procedures.