Gene Hackman dead at 95: Iconic actor and wife, 63, are found dead with their dog at Santa Fe home. #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,101
Caselookup - Disclaimer =
Looking for probate related filings by inputting this: name = Gene Hackman ...yr of birth =1930
Getting no results found.

Anyone? TiA

Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,102
Caselookup - Disclaimer =
Looking for probate related filings by inputting this: name = Gene Hackman ...yr of birth =1930
Getting no results found.

Anyone? TiA
It's there Try Hackman Gene. Betsy's there, too, as Hackman Betsy. Filed on 3/6/25.
 
  • #1,103
Remains Still Unclaimed. The Wills.
Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust.
@ClearAhead
Thx for your response.

MSM stories reported that both wills had been filed in court* but lotsa mangled info was circulated.


ETA: I also just noticed that just above @SophieRose found wills were filed, per official ct site.
________________________
* From wiki.com re Gene.
"Hackman's will, created in 1995, lists Arakawa as his sole inheritor; Arakawa's will states that if they die within 90 days of each other, the proceeds go to charity."
Gene Hackman's children not named in actor's $80m will Mar. 15, 2025
Gene Hackman’s will leaves his full $80M fortune to late wife and doesn’t mention his 3 children Mar. 14, 2025.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,104
Ii appears these proceedings were mainly to have Julia Peters appointed as personal representative and allowing informal probate.


D-101-PB-202500059

[th]
CASE NUMBER



[/th]​


03/06/2025ORD: APPROVING PROBATE/APPOINTMENT OF PERSONAL REP
Order for Informal Probate of Will and Appointment of Personal Representative

What’s informal probate?
BBM
“Informal probate is a simplified process of executing a will, managing estate claims, and distributing properties to beneficiaries in accordance with the decedent’s wishes. When informal probate is used, the whole process of managing an estate after the owner’s death is simplified. It is also expedited, allowing the property to be distributed in a quicker time and at a lower cost.

The majority of probate cases in New Mexico will be conducted through informal probate. Estates are eligible for probate when all assets held within it amount to less than $50,000. Keep in mind that assets in transfer upon death accounts, jointly owned property and property held in trust will not be added to the estate’s value. Thus, with careful estate planning, a person planning for the end of their life can help their family avoid the more complex probate procedure.

Informal probate is also only available when there are no disputes or contesting claims.”
 
  • #1,105
The Santa Fe New Mexican is running an editorial today expressing their opinion and what I tried to say about FOIA earlier in thread. It's behind a paywall but basically the fact that anything gathered, researched or investigated by public servants belongs to the public. Also US Law does not guarantee privacy rights in death. A case is cited from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which decided in favor of parents seeking privacy for a dead child. Also Kurt Cobain's case was decided in favor of his privacy. So there are precedents. The op-ed recognizes that the photos could be used for sensational purposes and regrets that -- but this is what I found most interesting: the editorial brings up the point that only the rich can win these judgements because of the cost, and the courts hate making a decision that is not fair to all. So privacy in death will be on trial Monday when the Hackman family lawyer makes its case.
----
Another interesting fact is that the comments are outraged. No one commenting wants the material released and one person said they are cancelling their subscription because the op-ed is supporting the law. We have to remember that many people, like in cold cases, have been protected by FOIA requests, whereas in the past LE could keep hidden whatever they wanted. So this is about law. Whatever we think, the law always protects some and hurts others, but law is law. There are no grey areas. It will be up to the Judge.

 
  • #1,106
I appreciate all of your input. As an only child of a single mother I really never had to deal with issues like an unclaimed deceased relative. My mother passed away a couple decades ago and of course there was the burial within a short time. I guess I was just thinking of Gene Hackman and his wife laying in the morgue for such a protracted period of time. It is an unpleasant thought.
They already could have been cremated and their ashes are being held until further notice?
In their wills If they both wished to be cremated there may have been a consensus among all involved, including family to go ahead with that and whatever legal issues may come up with the will all will deal with it in proper time.

I can not fathom that anyone would leave GH & BA decomposed bodies stored away in a morgue or funeral establishment.
IMO
 
  • #1,107
Nothing to Probate? A Person w Custody of a Will in NM.
Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust.
@ClearAhead Thx for your post, but not sharing that possibility as a conclusion.

Their Santa Fe principal residence being titled in trust name does not necessarily mean that they left no assets which must be administered thru probate court. Possibly, but not necessarily.

Speaking generally re law in NM* (& some other states), not to this case specifically.
From NM statute:*
"A. Any person having custody of a will shall, as soon as he is informed of the death of the testator, deliver the will to a person able to secure its probate or, if none is known, to an appropriate court." (ibm)
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-45/article-2/part-5/s

This law requires Someone having custody of a will to deliver it to a person who can secure its probate, typically the Personal Representative named in the will.
In some circumstances, that Someone w custody of the will may not be able to locate the Personal Representative named in the will.
If so, that Someone is to deliver the will to approp. court to sort it.

Why this law? Because that Someone does not know as a matter of fact and law “nothing in the Will/s that required probate.”

A court is to make a finding of fact and that ruling of law on that.

Imo. Welcoming other interpretation or correction.
 
  • #1,108
Nothing to Probate? A Person w Custody of a Will in NM.

@ClearAhead Thx for your post, but not sharing that possibility as a conclusion.

Their Santa Fe principal residence being titled in trust name does not necessarily mean that they left no assets which must be administered thru probate court. Possibly, but not necessarily.

Speaking generally re law in NM* (& some other states), not to this case specifically.
From NM statute:*
"A. Any person having custody of a will shall, as soon as he is informed of the death of the testator, deliver the will to a person able to secure its probate or, if none is known, to an appropriate court." (ibm)
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-45/article-2/part-5/s

This law requires Someone having custody of a will to deliver it to a person who can secure its probate, typically the Personal Representative named in the will.
In some circumstances, that Someone w custody of the will may not be able to locate the Personal Representative named in the will.
If so, that Someone is to deliver the will to approp. court to sort it.

Why this law? Because that Someone does not know as a matter of fact and law “nothing in the Will/s that required probate.”

A court is to make a finding of fact and that ruling of law on that.

Imo. Welcoming other interpretation or correction.
As the court order was approved for an Informal probate, GHs personal assets seem to be less than $50,000. The balance of the $80 million estate appears to be held as trusts for which there won’t be a public record in court listing who gets what since trusts do not require probate, unless there’s a dispute. JMO

When does my will have to go through probate?

In New Mexico, if your estate is worth more than $50,000, probate is required. For smaller estates or certain assets (like property held in a trust), probate might not be necessary.

Sometimes, even smaller estates need to go through probate, like if a bank insists on seeing court documents to release funds or if a property title wasn’t transferred correctly.
 
  • #1,109
Probate.
As the court order was approved for an Informal probate, GHs personal assets seem to be less than $50,000. The balance of the $80 million estate appears to be held as trusts for which there won’t be a public record in court listing who gets what since trusts do not require probate, unless there’s a dispute. JMO

When does my will have to go through probate?

In New Mexico, if your estate is worth more than $50,000, probate is required. For smaller estates or certain assets (like property held in a trust), probate might not be necessary.

Sometimes, even smaller estates need to go through probate, like if a bank insists on seeing court documents to release funds or if a property title wasn’t transferred correctly.
@ClearAhead Sorry if my post was not clear and sorry if I misunderstood your post.

From your earlier post 1101, in its entirety:
"Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust."

I understood ^ post to suggest that someone w custody of GH's or BA's will could validly independently decide that the will(s) did not need to probated, just fuggedaboutit.

So my reply at post 1107 started: "... not sharing that possibility as a conclusion."
My post continued:
"Speaking generally re law in NM*... , not to this case specifically." (bbm this time)
The point: any person who has custody of a will, who learns of the testator's death, should not decide - nothing to probate, but instead should deliver it, per NM statute, quoted in my post.
Typically to the Personal Representative named in will or to approp. court.
 
  • #1,110
Probate.

@ClearAhead Sorry if my post was not clear and sorry if I misunderstood your post.

From your earlier post 1101, in its entirety:
"Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust."

I understood ^ post to suggest that someone w custody of GH's or BA's will could validly independently decide that the will(s) did not need to probated, just fuggedaboutit.

So my reply at post 1107 started: "... not sharing that possibility as a conclusion."
My post continued:
"Speaking generally re law in NM*... , not to this case specifically." (bbm this time)
The point: any person who has custody of a will, who learns of the testator's death, should not decide - nothing to probate, but instead should deliver it, per NM statute, quoted in my post.
Typically to the Personal Representative named in will or to approp. court.

Sounds reasonable. I should have written ‘little or nothing’ regarding probate considering less then $50k is that compared to $80 million. Nothing suggests GH did not have his financial affairs in order. JMO
 
  • #1,111
This thread took a lot out of me, I decided to quit posting for awhile. The accounts related by other posters of their family members, the stories I myself could tell but they leave me wrung out and so utterly with no answers. And they are all one of a kind. As shown by this family.
 
  • #1,112
This thread took a lot out of me, I decided to quit posting for awhile. The accounts related by other posters of their family members, the stories I myself could tell but they leave me wrung out and so utterly with no answers. And they are all one of a kind. As shown by this family.
Sending you hugs. Thanks for all you contribute to the forum; I always enjoy your posts. Good for you for taking care. xo
 
  • #1,113
And looks like some drama with Betsy's mom
Is she fighting for the will? 90 with alzheimers and no relatives?
A breakdown of what will and won't be released updated 30 min ago.

None of this makes sense to me. Wont claim body and suddenly shes filing legal motions at 90 with alzheimers not wanting the inside of house shown?
 
Last edited:
  • #1,114
And looks like some drama with Betsy's mom
Is she fighting for the will? 90 with alzheimers and no relatives?
A breakdown of what will and won't be released updated 30 min ago.

None of this makes sense to me. Wont claim body and suddenly shes filing legal motions at 90 with alzheimers not wanting the inside of house shown?
Betsy's mother is asking for the same things Gene's children were. Don't show images or video of the bodies or interior of the house. Not really too surprising.

Betsy and Gene were removed from the list of unclaimed bodies as of the update last Friday. I question if the names may have been removed due to publicity or if the bodies were actually claimed. Wouldn't surprise me if TMZ tries to get the records from the morgue showing who claimed the bodies if the bodies were actually claimed. I don't imagine those records were sealed and would be obtainable through the FOIA.

JMO
 
  • #1,115
And looks like some drama with Betsy's mom
Is she fighting for the will? 90 with alzheimers and no relatives?
A breakdown of what will and won't be released updated 30 min ago.

None of this makes sense to me. Wont claim body and suddenly shes filing legal motions at 90 with alzheimers not wanting the inside of house shown?
Prior portrayals of Betsy’s mother was that of a woman with dementia, where the housekeeper said the 91-year old was upset upon hearing her daughter was dead, but then later, “she forgot already”. (LINK)

Here, the mother sounds very clear and lucid in thought, at least through the legal documents. Does she have dementia?
 
  • #1,116
Betsy's mother is asking for the same things Gene's children were. Don't show images or video of the bodies or interior of the house. Not really too surprising.

Betsy and Gene were removed from the list of unclaimed bodies as of the update last Friday. I question if the names may have been removed due to publicity or if the bodies were actually claimed. Wouldn't surprise me if TMZ tries to get the records from the morgue showing who claimed the bodies if the bodies were actually claimed. I don't imagine those records were sealed and would be obtainable through the FOIA.

JMO
Yes I really don't want to see the bodies, but the trying to block things like autopsy and toxicology or photos of the scene, (blurred bodies)., I just don't understand why they are fighting so hard against the release when none of these people had even been involved on their lives. It's public record and closes the case, end notions of foul play. Betsy's mom Is arguing seeing the inside of her daughters home is unconstitutional? Apparently being unconstitutional is a way to block records? But why?
 
  • #1,117
Another question. If Betsy was her mother's POA, then who is in charge of her mother now
 
  • #1,118
Probate.

@ClearAhead Sorry if my post was not clear and sorry if I misunderstood your post.

From your earlier post 1101, in its entirety:
"Perhaps there was nothing in the Will/s that required probate because it was passed to Trust holdings, which do not require to be probated? An earlier title search by the media reported the principle residence was indeed held in a trust."

I understood ^ post to suggest that someone w custody of GH's or BA's will could validly independently decide that the will(s) did not need to probated, just fuggedaboutit.

So my reply at post 1107 started: "... not sharing that possibility as a conclusion."
My post continued:
"Speaking generally re law in NM*... , not to this case specifically." (bbm this time)
The point: any person who has custody of a will, who learns of the testator's death, should not decide - nothing to probate, but instead should deliver it, per NM statute, quoted in my post.
Typically to the Personal Representative named in will or to approp. court.

These notes ^ and the others speculating about the disposition of the will, and the assets, and the bodies, are generally not exactly wrong, but they are omitting vital pieces of information that bear strongly on an understanding of what is obviously happening. Please let me include a bit more info, and offer some clarification.

1 GH and BA are entirely separate estates and bodies, with their own independent choices made. I am going to refer to GH in explaining, but same is true for her.
2 "What to do about GH's body" is not an item handled by his will and a probate - those cover the retitling of assets left behind in GH's name (or personal items of his with no particular ownership title on them), which now need a different owner. OTOH, a dead body itself (or cremated remains) are not owned by any person.
3 Someone will be given the control of their disposition. There is likely a document that GH did covering the disposition of his remains and who he authorized to make those decisions, with alternates as needed. If no such doc was done, his "closest living kin" would be the default decision-maker(s).
4 The determination of whether a formal probate of $50,000 plus in assets is necessary is a question that handles itself, and the court allows the designated Executor of the will (in this case, an attorney) to file it as informal probate (in practical terms, no probate) if they expect there are minimal assets that are being handled by the will. That's what the reporting suggests.
5 What if there are really way more GH-titled assets to be handled by a probate? Again, that question is answered by itself -- is the court being presented with GH assets to retitle that exceed that number? The executor should have a good feel on what they will need retitled at some point (if anything) so there's not an incentive to leave things out (which are then stuck in ownership of GH who is dead).
6 Note also that assets "handled by the will" are going to end up owned and handled by the GH Trust anyhow, and those placed in charge of it, because the ony named beneficiary of the will is the GH Trust. So there's not really a conflict over what is handled by the will (if anything) vs the trust.
7 It's also common for such a trust to designate a disinheriting of anyone who contests the estate. So in light of the smaller limit of assets being handled by the will, there's not much incentive to bother to contest it.
8 Legally the state is going to want to honor GH's wishes of what he wanted to do with his assets, and the only question will be whether these were truly his wishes. But considering GH has had this trust in place for decades, that question won't be much in doubt.
9 There does seem to be plenty of indication that GH did want to leave a substantial sum to family members, and perhaps the vast bulk of his estate.
10 As for BA's assets, it appears they are set up to be administered by the attorney or some other hired trustee, and used for the continued care of her mom, until her mom passes.
 
  • #1,119
Yes I really don't want to see the bodies, but the trying to block things like autopsy and toxicology or photos of the scene, (blurred bodies)., I just don't understand why they are fighting so hard against the release when none of these people had even been involved on their lives. It's public record and closes the case, end notions of foul play. Betsy's mom Is arguing seeing the inside of her daughters home is unconstitutional? Apparently being unconstitutional is a way to block records? But why?

IMO, the case is closed.

They both died of natural causes, no crime was committed.

It’s now a matter for family or legal reps to wrap up. IMO
 
  • #1,120
And looks like some drama with Betsy's mom
Is she fighting for the will? 90 with alzheimers and no relatives?
A breakdown of what will and won't be released updated 30 min ago.

None of this makes sense to me. Wont claim body and suddenly shes filing legal motions at 90 with alzheimers not wanting the inside of house shown?

TMZ is creating more drama. It was Julia Peters, representing the estate who filed the first request asking that photos and video of the bodies not be released. ‘The estate’ (ie trusts) belongs to the beneficiaries now, so that’s who she is representing. Technically TMZ can claim the wishes she expressed are specifically coming from each of the family members, so their story specifies the source as Betsy’s mom.

This is a good example of the desperation of TMZ to continue spinning this story. It’s not about anyone fighting for the will, it’s about not believing what the tabloids want you to think.

JMO

“Julia Peters, representing the estate through the Sommer Udall Law Firm, filed a legal petition Tuesday to prevent the Santa Fe Sheriff's Office and the local medical examiner from releasing documents related to the case, particularly photos and video, such as body-worn camera footage..”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
2,992
Total visitors
3,125

Forum statistics

Threads
632,627
Messages
18,629,345
Members
243,225
Latest member
2co
Back
Top