Gene Hackman’s three kids were not named in his will, but they may go after the late actor’s $80 million fortune, anyway — and New Mexico law could allow them to challenge the will and make a run for their father’s dough.
After the sudden deaths of the 95-year-old Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa in their Santa Fe home, Hackman’s assets went to a living trust he had established decades ago and last amended in 2005.
The details of that trust have not been revealed to the public and few people know who is ultimately entitled to the estate.
It’s possible Christopher, Elizabeth, and Leslie Hackman, who were born of a previous marriage and had a famously rocky relationship with their father, are named among the trust’s mysterious benefactors.
Even if not, if the named benefactors are all dead, the fortune could go to them by default.
But even if the kids left out in the cold entirely, an old New Mexico supreme court case could help the them have the will declared bogus and get the money.
The case is Chapman v. Varela, in which the court ruled that someone’s last will and testament can be overturned if “suspicious circumstances” suggest that the beneficiary had “undue influence” over it when it was written.
If a plaintiff shows such suspicious circumstances, the burden of proof flips. In other words, the will is considered under “undue influence” until the beneficiary can prove it to be legit.
The possible “suspicious circumstances” include, but aren’t limited to:
- “Old age and weakened physical or mental condition” of the person when they wrote the will.
- “Lack of consideration for the bequest,” i.e., the beneficiary seems random with no apparent reason for them to get the dough.
- “Unnatural or unjust disposition of the property,” i.e., the terms of the will contratrict previous wills, seem obviously unfair, or are just plain weird.
- “Participation of beneficiary in procuring the gift,” i.e., a beneficiary played a big role in the writing of the will, such as driving the person to the lawyer’s office and being in the room when the will was written.
- “Domination or control over testator by beneficiary,” i.e., the beneficiary controlled the person’s business affairs.
- “Secrecy, concealment, or failure,” i.e., the will was kept deeply secret before the person died.
Presumably, any alleged “undue influence” would have been by Arakawa.
Hackman had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease before his death, but it is unclear when he was first diagnosed.
He also appeared to be in control of his faculties when the will was last amended in 2005. He appeared on Larry King Live in 2004 and gave a seemingly lucid interview with GQ in 2011, among other public appearances.
Still, if the kids can show its terms were blatantly unfair, a complete U-turn from his previous wills, or were kept secret from them, that could be enough to at least challenge it in court.
Of course, whether a legal battle will break out over the $80 million fortune remains to be seen, but Christopher Hackman, who hired a top Santa Fe probate attorney, according to TMZ, may be gearing up for one.
Read the full article here