Gene Hackman’s three kids weren’t named in his will, but they could still end up inheriting his $80 million fortune — possibly thanks to an old unrelated court case.
After the sudden deaths of the 95-year-old legendary actor and his wife Betsy Arakawa in their Santa Fe home, Hackman’s will revealed that all of his assets went into a living trust he established decades ago and last amended in 2005.
Details of the trust have not been revealed to the public, and few people know who is ultimately entitled to the estate, said Sante Fe probate lawyer Thomas Banner, who has no connection to the Hackman matter.
“There is no way to divine what the terms of the trust agreement are because trust agreements are intentionally private,” Banner told The Post.
It’s possible that Hackman’s kids, Christopher, Elizabeth, and Leslie Hackman, who were born during a previous marriage and had a famously rocky relationship with their father, are named among the trust’s benefactors, even though his will does not specify that is the case.
But even if they are not listed as recipients of any of the trust, if its named benefactors are all dead, the fortune could still go to them by default.
And if that isn’t the case, an old New Mexico supreme-court case could still help them have Hackman’s trust declared bogus and get the money..
The 2009 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.
Gene Hackman and wife Betsy Arakawa found dead in their home
“The opinion that stands is the best road map we attorneys have in the state on how to attack a disposition, whether it’s a will, a trust, or something like that,” Banner said.
The possible “suspicious circumstances” in such a case 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 contradict 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 living trust was initiated and his will 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.
But if the kids can show the terms of the documents 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.
Banner said the secrecy of the trust “is not too surprising” considering the famously private actor, “but that might be a place where someone could argue undue influence.”
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 lawyer, according to TMZ, may be gearing up for one.
发表回复