AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case concerns a surviving spouse who married the decedent after he executed a will and created a revocable trust. The will and trust devised the decedent’s estate to his children from a prior marriage, without mentioning the surviving spouse or the anticipated marriage. After the decedent’s death, the surviving spouse sought an intestate share of the estate, claiming to be an omitted spouse under New Mexico law (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Quay County, April 25, 2006: Held that the decedent died testate, appointed the son as personal representative, and denied the surviving spouse’s claim for an intestate share under NMSA 1978, § 45-2-301 (paras 4, 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Surviving Spouse): Argued that she was entitled to an intestate share under NMSA 1978, § 45-2-301, as the decedent’s will and trust did not provide for her. She contended that the trust assets should be included in the estate for calculating her share or used to satisfy her share if the probate estate was insufficient (paras 5, 9, 20-21).
• Respondent (Estate of Decedent): Asserted that the decedent’s intent to devise his property to his children was clear from the will and trust. Claimed that the surviving spouse was provided for through transfers outside the will, such as life insurance proceeds and retirement income, which triggered an exception under § 45-2-301(A)(3) (paras 6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the decedent’s children were devisees under NMSA 1978, § 45-2-301 (para 10).
• Whether the surviving spouse was entitled to an intestate share of the decedent’s estate as an omitted spouse (para 20).
• Whether trust assets could be included in the probate estate or used to satisfy the surviving spouse’s intestate share (paras 21-33).
• Whether the surviving spouse’s statutory allowances could be offset by transfers outside the will (paras 34-35).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 36).

Reasons

Majority Opinion (Per Celia Foy Castillo J., with Sutin CJ. concurring)

Definition of Devisee: The court held that the decedent’s children were not devisees under § 45-2-301 because the will devised the estate to the trustee of the trust, not directly to the children. The trust beneficiaries are not considered devisees under the statute (paras 13-16).

Omitted Spouse’s Intestate Share: The court found that none of the statutory exceptions under § 45-2-301(A) applied. The decedent’s will and trust did not reflect an intent to exclude the surviving spouse, and the record did not establish that transfers outside the will were intended as a substitute for a testamentary provision. The surviving spouse was therefore entitled to an intestate share (paras 17-20).

Trust Assets and Intestate Share: The court concluded that trust assets could not be included in the probate estate or used to satisfy the intestate share. A funded revocable trust is not part of the probate estate, and the omitted spouse’s intestate share is not a statutory allowance under § 46A-5-505(A)(3) (paras 22-33).

Statutory Allowances: The court held that the surviving spouse’s statutory allowances under §§ 45-2-402 and 45-2-403 could not be offset by transfers outside the will, as the statutes explicitly provide that such allowances are in addition to any intestate share (paras 34-35).

Dissenting Opinion (Per Bustamante J., dissenting in part)

Bustamante J. dissented on the issue of trust assets, arguing that the omitted spouse’s intestate share should be satisfied from the trust assets if the probate estate is insufficient. He criticized the majority for limiting the omitted spouse’s rights and argued that the legislative intent of § 45-2-301 was to prevent unintentional disinheritance, which should include access to trust assets (paras 38-41).