Wills. Order of Deaths.
I think that would only be in effect if they died without wills. Other a simultaneous death clause has become a common inclusion in wills, often both deaths occurring within 30 days are considered at the same time.
But regardless, iirc in the early days of news reporting on this tragedy it was revealed the Hackman home was held in a lawyers trust so that means beneficiary arrangements would be separate from personal property. Perhaps GH’s entire estate was involved, but as that’s a private matter, we don’t know. But senior wealthy people often have well organized estates in order to minimize probate and tax consequences.
“Typically, wills include a standard simultaneous death clause mirroring the state statute. However, Hackman and his wife may have wills dictating what should happen if they die simultaneously or if their order of death cannot be determined. For example, they could stipulate that the time period extend to 30 or 90 days.”
@ClearAhead
From ^ "I think that would only be in effect if they died without wills."
I believe NM's statutory survival 120hr req'mt (default) applies to probate proceedings for
- intestate decedents and
- testate decedents, whose wills do NOT contain "language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths or deaths in a common disaster..." See ¶ B, referring to "provisions of governing instruments" which would include wills.
It's likely imo that virtually all atty-drafted wills for people in NM contain "language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths or deaths in a common disaster..." so it's also likely that ¶ D below ("Survival by one hundred twenty hours is not required.") applies.
Still doubting if substantial amts of assets [ETA: of Hackman and/or Arakawa] will be probated thru court proceedings, as it's likely imo that trusts provide for distribution of their estates.
BTW, a snip from my earlier post #588:
"*** Info on file w the SF County Assessor's office indicates that title to 1425 Old Sunset Trail is held by a trust presumably established by Mr. H. and/or Ms A. Based on the existence of that trust, either individually or as a couple, imo likely that they received estate planning advice from attorneys knowledgeable in the field...."
imo
_________________________________________
From NM statute:
"Code § 45-2-702. Requirement of survival by one hundred twenty hours."
"A. For the purposes of the Uniform Probate Code, except as provided in Subsection D of this section, an individual who is not established by clear and convincing evidence to have survived an event, including the death of another individual, by one hundred twenty hours is deemed to have predeceased the event.
B. Except as provided in Subsection D of this section, for purposes of a provision of a governing instrument that relates to an individual surviving an event, including the death of another individual, an individual who is not established by clear and convincing evidence to have survived the event by one hundred twenty hours is deemed to have predeceased the event.
D. Survival by one hundred twenty hours is not required if:
(1) the governing instrument contains language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths or deaths in a common disaster and that language is operable under the facts of the case;
(2) the governing instrument expressly indicates that an individual is not required to survive an event, including the death of another individual, by any specified period or expressly requires the individual to survive the event by a specified period, but survival of the event or specified period must be established by clear and convincing evidence;..."
for expressing these thoughts.
