May I add some important facts to the discussion? Some of this was noted above, and some was missed, but all of it is relevant to the ideas being raised. (FWIW my experience extends to dealing with literally hundreds of trusts over the last 30-35 years, probably in the thousands overall, and dealing with all these issues during life and then after death, both with others and with my own family.)
1 The reporting in this case had a mix of fact and fiction, but one of the most widely-mentioned pieces of
fiction (or, a misleading idea at best) was the assertion that GH's family was "excluded" from the will. Pure fiction.
2 As mentioned, that probably wouldn't be a big deal in any event, because it's VERY likely the will isn't handling any assets. Or very few. (Personal household items, for example.)
3 But more important to note (and contrary to how this was widely reported), there was
not any person whatsoever named as beneficiary in the will.
...It is a "pour-over will" which is a technical term describing a will whose sole purpose is to move overlooked or minimal value assets into a trust that has been created to handle the disposition of assets. In theory, ALL assets would have been already placed into trust ownership, but a pour-over will is a safety net. As long as the leftovers are not real estate and not worth 50K+ in total, the pour-over will does NOT have to go through the probate process (ie, it avoids court). If you want more info on such a will, google can help, and here is one NM law firm with online info
Pour Over Will | Estate Planning Attorneys | New Mexico Legal Group
4 The will does have the name Betsy Arakawa in its wording, which is the source of the misinformation, and it does not have the kids names. BUT
the will did not name her as the beneficiary in any way (or exclude the kids)! That's what is not being understood.
5 In addition, the will does NOT say that BA is a beneficiary of the trust either. That's also wrong info.
6 Instead, the Sole Named Beneficiary of the will is the personal trust of GH - the "Gene Hackman Living Trust" - and BA's name is given in the will because she was its initial successor trustee (iow, manager) of the trust who would have to make sure those assets are put into trust control. (There were alternates who were specified, and they are the ones now handling those tasks.) Here's a USA Today article that does a fairly good job of getting these facts right:
Gene Hackman and wife Betsy Arakawa named each other in their wills
7 NOTE: That article does have some mention of their various trusts that have come to light over the years, and some details on those trusts, but those trust factoids gleaned are in large part from DECADES ago, and we have no way of knowing how that may have changed. It is vital to realize that the designations of a trust can be privately changed by the one who created it as his wishes change over the years, out of sight.
But one thing is becoming clear, which is that GH and BA had done considerable planning, with experts, to make sure their assets would go where they wanted, and be done in a way that will be kept private. They had created MULTIPLE trusts to cover the various needs, and assets will be moved (and likely have already been moved, through the years) from this trust to that. But what assets are not owned by another entity (and thus handled by the will), which are already in which trust, and where will they ultimately go, and why? We don't know anything for sure, and we don't even have a hint, and that's the way they wanted it.
abcnews.go.com
