Tragic Hackman Case Demonstrates Importance of Addressing Even Unlikely Estate Planning Contingencies
Most people understand how important it is to develop a valid estate plan, but for true security, you need to create legal instruments that clearly address all reasonable contingencies, and account for changes in circumstances. Knowledgeable legal guidance is critical in this regard. An experienced attorney understands the problems that arise when there are holes in an estate plan, and can help you avoid pitfalls that could lead to confusion and litigation.
The tragic news that legendary actor Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa were found dead in their home shocked family members, friends and fans. While Hackman was 95 and had been in poor health for several years, Arakawa was 32 years younger with no apparent serious physical problems. It’s understandable to presume that Hackman would pass away first, but when an investigation showed that Arakawa died from sudden lung problems caused by hantavirus approximately one week before her husband’s death, it touched off numerous questions about the distribution of an estimated $80 million in assets.
Hackman established a revocable trust to hold most of his assets during his life. Like many people, he also created a “pour-over will” directing that any property he owned be shifted to the trust upon his death. It is presumed that the trust directed assets to his wife following his passing, but as trusts are typically not made public, it is unclear as to whom the contingent beneficiaries were, if any. He did have three children from a prior marriage, and at least one has initiated legal action in regard to the estate.
Arakawa’s will named Hackman as the personal representative of her estate. Given his age and possible dementia, this designation made in 2005 should have been revised. While most of her property was to go to Hackman’s trust, this would only be true if he survived her by 90 days. If he did not, her personal representative was to create a charitable trust “to achieve purposes beneficial to the community,” reflecting charitable goals “expressed … by my spouse and me during our lifetimes.” The vague language regarding the specific beneficiaries could create problems.
Under New Mexico law, there is a default 120-hour period after which deaths of spouses are no longer considered simultaneous. However, the statute does allow for different timeframes if a will or other governing instrument addresses deaths that occur in close proximity. This means that Arakawa’s assets would not first pass through Hackman’s trust if the 90-day timeframe from her will is upheld. Hackman’s estate plan did not include any special language concerning simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, fatalities.
The Hackman–Arakawa scenario reminds us that estate planning is more than a boilerplate exercise. It requires anticipating “what if” questions—no matter how unlikely—and building clarity and flexibility into your documents. If you haven’t reviewed your estate plan in the last five years—or if you lack provisions for remote contingencies—now is the time to act.
At The Paton Law Firm LLC in Fair Lawn, I help North Jersey clients prepare thorough, enforceable wills and trusts, tailored to each client’s situation and goals. Please call 201-470-4801 or contact me online for a free initial consultation.
