In New Mexico, the doctrine of equitable conversion is a legal principle that treats real property as personal property, and vice versa, for specific purposes, particularly in the context of contracts for the sale of land. When a binding contract for the sale of real estate is executed in New Mexico, equitable conversion generally dictates that the buyer obtains an equitable interest in the property, while the seller retains legal title as security for the purchase price. This conversion occurs at the moment the contract becomes binding, assuming the contract does not explicitly negate its application. Consequently, if the seller dies after the contract is binding but before the closing, the real property interest is considered personal property for the purposes of their estate, passing to their heirs or beneficiaries as personalty. Conversely, if the buyer dies after the contract is binding, their equitable interest in the real property is considered personal property, passing to their heirs or beneficiaries as personalty. This doctrine is crucial for determining how property is distributed in an estate when a sale is pending. The Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Article 2, also influences aspects of sales transactions, but the core concept of equitable conversion regarding the nature of the property interest prior to closing stems from common law principles adopted in New Mexico. The intent of the parties, as expressed in the contract, can also override the default application of equitable conversion.

In New Mexico, a will that is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, and also not signed by two witnesses in the testator’s presence, is considered an “improperly executed will” unless it qualifies as a “holographic will” or a “nuncupative will” under specific statutory provisions. New Mexico law, specifically NMSA 1978, § 45-2-502, defines the requirements for a valid will. A holographic will is valid if the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. A nuncupative will, or oral will, is generally not recognized in New Mexico, except for soldiers in active military service or mariners at sea, and even then, it has strict limitations and is often difficult to prove. Therefore, a will that is typed, signed by the testator, but lacks the required witness signatures, and is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, would be deemed invalid. The scenario presented describes a typed will with the testator’s signature but no witnesses, and it is not stated to be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. This falls outside the exceptions for holographic or nuncupative wills. The absence of proper attestation by witnesses, or the lack of the testator’s sole handwriting for all material provisions and the signature, renders the will invalid in New Mexico.

In New Mexico, the doctrine of adoption by estoppel is a legal principle that can allow an individual to inherit from an estate as if they were a legal heir, even if a formal adoption decree was never finalized. This doctrine is rooted in equity and prevents a party from denying the existence of an adoptive relationship when the other party has acted in reliance upon the promise or representation of adoption to their detriment. For adoption by estoppel to apply, there must typically be a clear promise or agreement to adopt, conduct consistent with that promise, and reliance on that promise by the child to their detriment. New Mexico case law, such as Estate of Griego, has affirmed that a party claiming inheritance through adoption by estoppel must demonstrate these elements. The reliance must be substantial and the child must have suffered a disadvantage or incurred a loss that would not have occurred had the adoption promise not been made or relied upon. This is distinct from a formal statutory adoption, which requires court approval and a decree. The purpose is to prevent injustice when a familial relationship was treated as existing and relied upon, but a technicality prevented its legal formalization.

In New Mexico, a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require witnesses. This is a key distinction from attested wills. The testator, Elara Vance, drafted the entire document, including the date and her signature, in her own handwriting. This satisfies the statutory requirements for a holographic will under New Mexico law. Therefore, the will is valid despite the absence of witnesses. The primary purpose of the witness requirement for attested wills is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring the testator’s intent is genuine. However, the inherent nature of a holographic will, being entirely in the testator’s hand, serves as a strong indicator of authenticity, thus obviating the need for witnesses in New Mexico. This principle is rooted in the desire to accommodate testators who may not have immediate access to witnesses or who prefer to keep their testamentary intentions private. The validity hinges on the entirety of the material provisions being in the testator’s handwriting.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is governed by statutes designed to protect children or spouses who are unintentionally omitted from a testator’s will. New Mexico law, specifically NMSA 1978, § 45-2-302, addresses this situation. If a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, that child is generally entitled to a share of the estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the omission was intentional and clearly expressed in the will, or where the testator had other children and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the omitted child. The key here is the testator’s intent and the circumstances of the omission. A spouse omitted after marriage also has rights. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance. The calculation for the share of a pretermitted heir is based on the intestate succession laws of New Mexico, which would dictate how the estate would be divided if there were no will. For instance, if a child is born after the will and the will does not provide for them, and the other exceptions do not apply, that child would receive the share they would have inherited had the testator died without a will. This share is typically determined by dividing the estate among the surviving spouse and children according to the intestate succession rules. The explanation here does not involve a specific numerical calculation as the question is conceptual, focusing on the legal framework for pretermitted heirs in New Mexico.

The scenario involves a testator who created a will that was then altered by a codicil. A codicil, in New Mexico law, is a supplement or addition to a will that modifies, explains, or adds to its provisions. It must be executed with the same formalities as a will. When a codicil is properly executed and refers to a will, it effectively republishes the will as of the date of the codicil. This means that any bequests or provisions in the original will that were invalid or revoked at the time of the codicil’s execution can be revived, provided the codicil clearly indicates this intent. In this case, the original will contained a bequest to “my beloved dog, Fido,” which is generally void as a dog is not a legal person capable of inheriting property. However, the codicil, executed three years later, explicitly states, “I hereby confirm and republish my Last Will and Testament dated October 15, 2020, and specifically direct that my estate shall provide for the care of my dog, Fido, by establishing a trust for his benefit.” This specific language in the codicil demonstrates the testator’s intent to provide for the dog and republishes the will. New Mexico law permits the creation of trusts for the care of animals. The codicil’s reference to the original will and its specific direction regarding the dog’s care, coupled with the legal permissibility of animal care trusts, means the bequest for Fido’s care is now valid and effective. The residuary estate is what remains after all specific bequests and debts are paid. Since the codicil republishes the will and the animal care provision is now valid, it must be satisfied from the estate. The remaining portion of the estate, after satisfying the valid animal care trust and any other prior obligations, would then pass to the residuary beneficiaries. The crucial legal principle here is the doctrine of republication by codicil, which updates the will to the date of the codicil, thereby validating provisions that might have been infirm at the time of the original will’s execution, provided the codicil shows such intent.

In New Mexico, a holographic will is valid if it is entirely in the handwriting of the testator and signed by the testator. The testator, Elara Vance, drafted a will entirely in her own handwriting. She signed it with her full name, “Elara Vance,” at the end of the document. The will directed the distribution of her estate, including specific bequests of artwork and a residual clause for the remainder of her property. No witnesses were present or required for a holographic will in New Mexico. The core requirement is that the entire testamentary instrument, from inception to signature, must be in the testator’s handwriting. The presence of a signature at the end of the document is sufficient for execution under New Mexico law for this type of will. Therefore, Elara’s will is valid as a holographic will.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by NMSA 1978, § 45-2-302. This statute generally presumes that a testator intends to provide for their children and spouse. A child born or adopted after the execution of a will, or a child conceived before and born thereafter, who is not mentioned or provided for in the will, is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will, and had left no surviving spouse. The purpose is to prevent accidental disinheritance due to the testator’s lack of knowledge of the child’s existence at the time of will execution. However, this protection does not extend to a child who was provided for or mentioned in the will, or to whom the testator made substantial provision outside the will that was intended to substitute for a provision in the will. The statute also allows for a waiver of these rights if the testator’s intent to disinherit is clear and unambiguous.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a type of will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting. In New Mexico, a holographic will is valid if it is signed by the testator and the signature and material provisions of the will are in the testator’s handwriting. New Mexico Statute § 45-2-502(B) specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that they are valid if the signature and the testamentary provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. The question tests the understanding of the validity requirements for such wills under New Mexico law. The key is that the entire will, including the dispositive provisions and the signature, must be in the testator’s handwriting. Therefore, a will that is typed but signed by the testator is not a valid holographic will in New Mexico. The validity hinges on the entirety of the material provisions and the signature being handwritten.

In New Mexico, the Uniform Trust Code (NTC), specifically NMSA 1978, § 46-1-101 et seq., governs the creation and administration of trusts. A crucial aspect of trust law is the ability of a settlor to revoke or amend a trust. Under the NTC, a trust is irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly provide that it is revocable. If a trust is revocable, the settlor may revoke or amend the trust by compliance with the terms of the trust. If the terms do not specify a method, the settlor may revoke or amend by any method that is reasonable under the circumstances, which could include a written instrument signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee. If the settlor is also the sole trustee, the intent to revoke or amend can often be demonstrated by actions that are consistent with ownership of the trust property, such as transferring the property out of the trust into their individual name, provided the trust terms do not prohibit such actions or mandate a specific revocation procedure that is not met. The Uniform Trust Code aims to provide flexibility while ensuring clarity in the settlor’s intent. The key is whether the trust instrument itself dictates a specific method for revocation, and if not, whether the settlor’s actions clearly and unequivocally demonstrate their intent to revoke or amend the trust. The question hinges on the sufficiency of the settlor’s actions in light of the trust’s terms and the NTC’s provisions for revocation when no specific method is prescribed.

In New Mexico, a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require witnesses. However, for a non-holographic will to be valid, it must be signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by their direction, and it must be attested to by at least two credible witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the testator’s presence. The scenario describes a will signed by the testator and then presented to two individuals who sign it. The critical element missing for a non-holographic will is the testator’s signature in the presence of the witnesses, or the witnesses signing in the testator’s presence. The explanation states the witnesses signed “after the testator had signed it, but not in his presence.” This lack of the testator’s presence during the witnessing process, or the witnesses not signing in the testator’s presence, renders the will invalid as a non-holographic will. Since the will is not described as being entirely in the testator’s handwriting, it cannot be presumed to be holographic. Therefore, the will fails the statutory requirements for a valid non-holographic will in New Mexico due to the improper witnessing. The law in New Mexico regarding the execution of wills is found in the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) Chapter 45, Article 2. Specifically, NMSA 1978, § 45-2-502 outlines the requirements for a valid will, including the need for witnesses to sign in the testator’s presence.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is crucial for understanding the distribution of a decedent’s estate when a will fails to account for certain family members born or adopted after the will’s execution. New Mexico law, specifically the Probate Code, addresses this through provisions designed to protect individuals who would have inherited had there been no will, or if the will was made before their existence or significant familial change. A pretermitted heir is generally a child or grandchild of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of the testator’s will, and who is neither mentioned nor provided for in the will. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent accidental disinheritance. If a testator has no other living descendants at the time of executing the will, and a child is born or adopted thereafter, that child is entitled to receive a share of the estate equivalent to what they would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. Similarly, if a testator has one or more children living when the will is executed, and a child is born or adopted thereafter, the after-born or adopted child receives a share equal to what they would have received if the testator had died intestate, but only if the will does not provide for them and the omission was not intentional. The determination of whether an omission was intentional is a factual inquiry, often based on the language of the will itself or extrinsic evidence if the will is ambiguous. The statute aims to give effect to the likely intent of the testator, assuming that a testator would not intentionally disinherit a child born or adopted after the will’s creation without clear indication. The distribution to a pretermitted heir typically comes from the portion of the estate not devised to the surviving spouse, and if that is insufficient, then from the other beneficiaries of the will, proportionally.

The question concerns the impact of a beneficiary predeceasing the testator on a specific bequest in New Mexico. Under New Mexico law, particularly concerning wills, if a beneficiary named in a will dies before the testator, the gift to that beneficiary lapses, meaning it fails and becomes part of the residuary estate, unless an anti-lapse statute applies. New Mexico has an anti-lapse statute, codified in NMSA § 45-2-603. This statute prevents lapse if the predeceasing beneficiary is a grandparent or a lineal descendant of a grandparent of the testator, and the beneficiary leaves a surviving issue. In this scenario, Elara is the testator’s sister, who is a lineal descendant of Elara’s grandparents. Elara’s son, Mateo, is therefore a lineal descendant of Elara’s grandparents (and thus the testator’s grandparents). Since Mateo is alive and is the issue of Elara, the anti-lapse statute would apply, and the bequest to Elara would pass to Mateo. The question asks what happens to the specific bequest of the antique grandfather clock. Because Elara predeceased the testator, and Elara’s surviving issue, Mateo, is a lineal descendant of the testator’s grandparents, the bequest does not lapse but instead passes to Mateo. Therefore, Mateo inherits the antique grandfather clock.

In New Mexico, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) § 45-2-502(B) specifically allows for holographic wills, provided they are signed by the testator. This statute is crucial because it waives the requirement for attesting witnesses, which is a hallmark of attested wills under NMSA § 45-2-502(A). The key distinction is the complete handwritten nature of the document. If any part of the material dispositive provisions of the will is typed or printed, and not in the testator’s handwriting, it generally fails to qualify as a holographic will under New Mexico law. Therefore, for a will to be considered holographic in New Mexico, every word that constitutes the dispositive plan must be in the testator’s own handwriting. The signature requirement is also essential for validity.

In New Mexico, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of estates. When a decedent dies intestate, meaning without a valid will, New Mexico law dictates the distribution of the estate. The primary rule of intestate succession is that the estate passes to the decedent’s heirs. For a decedent survived by a spouse and children, where the children are also issue of the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse inherits the entire net estate. This is a key provision designed to protect the surviving family unit. If the decedent is survived by a spouse and children, but one or more of the children are not issue of the surviving spouse, the spouse inherits the first \$150,000 of the augmented estate plus one-half of the remaining augmented estate, and the descendants who are not issue of the surviving spouse inherit the remaining one-half. The augmented estate concept, found in New Mexico’s elective share provisions (NMSA 1978, § 40-3-13), is designed to protect a surviving spouse from disinheritance by considering certain non-probate transfers. However, for pure intestate succession, the distribution is generally simpler. The scenario describes a decedent survived by a spouse and two children, both of whom are also children of the surviving spouse. Under these specific circumstances, the surviving spouse inherits the entirety of the net estate.

New Mexico law, like many jurisdictions, addresses the concept of a “pretermitted heir” – a child or descendant of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of a will and is not provided for in the will. The primary purpose of pretermitted heir statutes is to prevent accidental disinheritance. Under New Mexico law, specifically NMSA § 45-2-302, a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not mentioned or provided for in the will is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), divided among the surviving spouse and children. However, this protection does not extend to a child who was provided for or mentioned in the will, or to whom a testamentary provision was made for the child’s benefit in lieu of a share in the estate. The statute also allows for a testator to intentionally disinherit a child, even one born after the will’s execution, provided the intent to disinherit is clear and unambiguous in the will itself. In this scenario, since Elias’s will explicitly states that it is his intention to make no provision for any after-born or after-adopted children, he has effectively disinherited any such future children. This explicit statement overrides the default pretermitted heir protections. Therefore, Elias’s estate will pass according to the terms of his existing will, with no share reserved for any potential after-born child.

In New Mexico, a will can be self-proved by including a specific attestation clause and an affidavit signed by the testator and witnesses before a notary public. This affidavit, typically attached to the will, essentially allows the will to be admitted to probate without further testimony from the witnesses, assuming the affidavit meets statutory requirements. New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) § 45-2-504 governs the execution of wills and provides for self-proving. The statute specifies the language and formalities required for the affidavit. For a will to be self-proved, the testator must declare to the witnesses that the instrument is their will, and they must sign the will in the presence of the witnesses. The witnesses then sign the will in the presence of the testator and each other. The self-proving affidavit, which is part of the will’s execution ceremony, is a sworn statement by the testator and witnesses that the will was executed according to law. This affidavit is made before a person authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary public. The purpose of the self-proving affidavit is to streamline the probate process by creating a presumption of due execution, thereby avoiding the need to locate and depose witnesses later. It is crucial that the affidavit strictly adheres to the statutory language and that all required signatures and acknowledgments are present. If the affidavit is defective, the will may still be valid if it was properly executed, but it will not benefit from the self-proving presumption. The question hinges on the legal effect of a properly executed self-proving affidavit in New Mexico.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by statute, specifically New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) § 45-2-302. This statute outlines the rights of a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in the will and not otherwise mentioned in the will or provided for by a nonprobate transfer. Such a child is considered a pretermitted heir. The statute generally presumes that the omission was unintentional. To overcome this presumption, the testator must have intended to disinherit the child. This intent can be shown through specific language in the will or by demonstrating that the testator knew of the child’s existence and made substantial provision for them outside the will, or that the testator provided for the child in other ways that clearly indicate an intention to disinherit. If a testator has other children living when the will was executed and devised substantially all of their estate to the other children, and the omitted child was born after the will’s execution, the omitted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to any devise made to the testator’s other children. If the testator had no other children living when the will was executed, the omitted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to that which the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. In this scenario, the testator executed the will before the birth of their child, and the will makes no provision for after-born children. The testator’s intent to disinherit the after-born child is not explicitly stated in the will, nor is there evidence of substantial provision outside the will that clearly indicates such intent. Therefore, the child is a pretermitted heir and is entitled to a share of the estate. The statute dictates that if the testator had other children living when the will was executed, the pretermitted child receives a share equal to the devises to the other children. However, if, as in this case, the testator had no other children living when the will was executed, the pretermitted child receives the share they would have received had the testator died intestate. Intestate succession in New Mexico for a sole surviving child is the entire estate.

New Mexico law, like many other states, recognizes the concept of a “pretermitted heir,” which generally refers to a child or descendant born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in the will. The purpose of pretermitted heir statutes is to prevent accidental disinheritance. Under New Mexico law, specifically NMSA 1978, § 45-2-302, a child born or adopted after the testator executes a will who is not mentioned or provided for in the will is entitled to a share of the estate. This share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. The share is taken from the portions of the estate that pass by will to the beneficiaries other than a surviving spouse. However, this protection does not extend to a child if it appears from the will that the omission was intentional or if the testator provided for the child by a transfer outside the will, such as a substantial gift during the testator’s lifetime, intended to be in lieu of a testamentary provision. In this scenario, Mateo was born after the will was executed and was not mentioned. The will does not indicate an intentional omission, nor does it mention any specific provision made outside the will for Mateo. Therefore, Mateo is entitled to a share of the estate as a pretermitted heir, calculated as if Elias died intestate. Since Elias had a surviving spouse, Amelia, and a child, Mateo, under New Mexico’s intestacy laws (NMSA 1978, § 45-2-102), Amelia would receive the first \(300,000\) of the estate plus one-half of any remaining estate, and Mateo would receive the remaining one-half of the estate. The question asks about the share Mateo would receive from the portion of the estate passing by will. The pretermitted heir statute directs that the share be taken from the beneficiaries of the will. Assuming the entire estate passes by will, and excluding any specific provisions for Amelia that might alter the intestacy calculation for the remaining estate, Mateo would receive his intestate share from the testamentary estate. If the will left the entire estate to Amelia, Mateo’s share would be calculated based on the intestacy rules as applied to the total estate, and it would be taken from Amelia’s testamentary share.

New Mexico law, specifically the Uniform Trust Code as adopted in New Mexico, governs the termination of a trust. A trust can terminate under several circumstances. One such circumstance is when the trust purpose becomes unlawful, contrary to public policy, or impossible to fulfill. In this scenario, the trust’s stated purpose of providing for the perpetual care of a specific, but now nonexistent, species of desert flora renders the purpose impossible to fulfill. The Uniform Trust Code, under Section 44-2-414 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA), allows for the termination of a trust if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become impossible to fulfill. The court has the discretion to distribute the trust property to the beneficiaries who are then entitled to receive it. In this case, with the specific purpose being impossible, the remaining beneficiaries, as determined by the trust’s terms or intestacy laws if the trust is silent on remainder beneficiaries upon impossibility, would receive the assets. The concept of cy pres, typically applied to charitable trusts, is not directly applicable here as this appears to be a private trust, and the statute directly addresses impossibility of purpose for any trust. The focus is on the impossibility of the trust’s objective, leading to its termination and distribution of assets.

New Mexico law, specifically the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in New Mexico, governs the modification and termination of trusts. Under NMSA § 46A-4-411, a trustee may proceed to amend a trust by following the procedures outlined in the trust instrument or, if the instrument is silent, by seeking judicial approval or obtaining the consent of all beneficiaries. In this scenario, the trust instrument explicitly grants the trustee the power to amend the trust for the purpose of clarifying administrative provisions and adapting to changes in tax law. The trustee’s proposed amendment to adjust the distribution schedule to account for increased inflation and to rename the trust to reflect its current investment strategy falls within the scope of administrative clarifications and adaptations to economic conditions, which are permissible under the trust’s express terms. No beneficiary consent is required if the trust instrument grants the trustee such authority, and the amendment does not violate any express prohibitions in the trust or the fundamental purpose of the trust. The trustee’s action is therefore valid without seeking court approval or beneficiary consent, provided the amendment is made in good faith and in accordance with the trust’s stated powers.

In New Mexico, the Uniform Trust Code, specifically NMSA 1978, § 46-1-101 et seq., governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trust instrument is silent on the matter of trustee compensation, the law presumes that a trustee is entitled to reasonable compensation. This reasonableness is determined by considering several factors, including the amount and character of the trust property, the extent of the trustee’s services, the trustee’s skill and experience, the trustee’s fidelity and diligence, the trustee’s integrity and conscientiousness, the trustee’s success in administering the trust, and the trustee’s professional standing. Furthermore, the trustee has a duty to keep the beneficiaries informed of the trust’s administration, which includes providing accountings. If a trustee fails to provide requested accountings or if the beneficiaries dispute the reasonableness of the compensation charged, a court can review and adjust the trustee’s fees. New Mexico law also permits a trustee to advance expenses in administering the trust or to be reimbursed from the trust property for reasonable expenses incurred in the administration or protection of the trust. However, the trustee cannot unilaterally determine their compensation without regard to the trust instrument or statutory guidelines for reasonableness, and such actions can lead to disputes and potential surcharge actions by the beneficiaries if deemed excessive or improperly taken.

The scenario involves a deceased testator who executed a will in New Mexico. The will contains a residuary clause that purports to distribute the remainder of the estate to a trust established by the testator during their lifetime. However, the trust document was not properly executed as a will under New Mexico law. Specifically, New Mexico law, as codified in the New Mexico Uniform Probate Code (NMSA 1978, Chapter 45), generally requires a will to be signed by the testator and by two witnesses. A trust document, while valid as a trust, is not automatically incorporated by reference into a will unless certain conditions are met. The doctrine of incorporation by reference allows a testator to incorporate into their will extrinsic documents that were in existence at the time the will was executed and that the will clearly identifies. For a document to be incorporated by reference, it must be described in the will in such terms as to give it a reasonably certain identification, and it must be shown that the will intended to incorporate the document. Critically, the document to be incorporated must have been in existence at the time the will was executed. In this case, the trust was established prior to the will’s execution. However, New Mexico also has specific provisions regarding the disposition of property by will to a trust, often referred to as “pour-over” provisions. Under NMSA 1978, § 45-2-511, a will may dispose of property by creating a trust or by referring to a trust that has been established, identified, and is sufficiently described in the will, whether the trust is amendable or revocable or has been executed or amended after the testator’s death. The property so disposed of shall be administered and distributed in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument. This statute is designed to facilitate pour-over arrangements, allowing a testator to direct assets from their will into a pre-existing or subsequently created trust. The statute does not require the trust instrument itself to be executed with the formalities of a will, as long as the trust is sufficiently identified and described in the will. Therefore, the will’s residuary clause effectively directs the estate’s remainder to the trust, even if the trust document was not executed as a will. The key is the clear identification and description of the trust within the will and the testator’s intent to pour over assets into it.

The core issue here is the validity of a holographic will under New Mexico law. New Mexico, like many states, has specific requirements for valid wills. For a holographic will, the entirety of the document must be in the testator’s handwriting. This means that any material portion of the will, including dispositive provisions, the appointment of an executor, and the testator’s signature, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. In this scenario, while the dispositive provisions and the testator’s signature are handwritten, the attestation clause and the witness signatures are not. The attestation clause, even if not strictly required for a holographic will’s validity in its entirety, is typically present in witnessed wills and its inclusion here, alongside witness signatures, suggests an intent to comply with witnessed will formalities. However, the critical failure for a holographic will is that the entire document must be in the testator’s hand. The presence of printed attestation language and witness signatures, which are not in the testator’s handwriting, does not invalidate the holographic portions of the will if the holographic requirements are otherwise met. New Mexico’s probate code, specifically regarding holographic wills, emphasizes that the will must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Therefore, the handwritten dispositive provisions and signature constitute a valid holographic will, irrespective of the non-handwritten attestation clause and witness signatures, as those elements are not essential to the validity of a holographic will. The document is effective as a holographic will because all material provisions and the signature are in the testator’s handwriting.

In New Mexico, a crucial aspect of estate administration involves the proper handling of assets that are not explicitly designated in a will or are acquired after the will’s execution. These are typically considered part of the residuary estate. The residuary clause in a will is designed to capture all remaining assets, ensuring that no property is left intestate. If a residuary clause is absent or fails, the distribution of these unallocated assets would then follow New Mexico’s laws of intestacy. This means the property would pass to the decedent’s heirs as defined by statute, which could include a spouse, children, parents, siblings, and more distant relatives, depending on who survives the decedent. The specific order and proportion of inheritance are detailed in the New Mexico Probate Code. For instance, if a decedent dies leaving a surviving spouse and children, the spouse might inherit a portion and the children the remainder, or vice versa, depending on whether the property is community or separate property, and the specific intestate succession rules. Understanding the intent of the testator is paramount, and courts will strive to give effect to the will’s provisions, including any residuary clauses, to avoid intestacy.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not mentioned or provided for in that will. New Mexico law, specifically under the New Mexico Probate Code, generally protects such heirs. If a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, that child is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically the same share they would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. The purpose of this provision is to prevent accidental disinheritance. The statute aims to ensure that children are not overlooked due to oversight or the testator’s unawareness of their existence at the time the will was drafted. The determination of whether an omission was intentional requires careful examination of the will’s language and any surrounding circumstances that might indicate the testator’s intent. However, the default presumption is that the omission was unintentional, and the pretermitted heir receives a statutory share. This statutory share is calculated as if the testator died intestate, meaning the estate is divided according to the intestate succession laws of New Mexico.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in the will. New Mexico law, specifically under NMSA 1978, § 45-2-302, generally presumes that a testator intends to provide for after-born or after-adopted children. If a testator fails to make provision for such a child in their will, and there is no evidence that the omission was intentional, the child is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), meaning the child receives an intestate share of the estate. The intestate share is determined by New Mexico’s laws of intestacy, which generally distribute property among surviving children and spouses. This protection is afforded to the child unless the will explicitly states an intention to disinherit such a child or provides a substantial gift to the other parent of the child, indicating an intent to provide for the child through that parent. The purpose is to prevent accidental disinheritance of children who were not in the testator’s contemplation at the time the will was made.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Elias, executes a will in New Mexico. He subsequently moves to Colorado and dies there. The will was validly executed under New Mexico law at the time of its execution. New Mexico follows the Uniform Probate Code (UPC), which is also largely adopted by Colorado. Specifically, UPC Section 3-202, which New Mexico has adopted, provides that a will valid when executed remains valid in New Mexico even if the testator’s domicile changes. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 15-11-506 also contains a similar provision, validating wills executed in accordance with the law of the place of execution or the testator’s domicile at the time of execution. Therefore, Elias’s will, validly executed in New Mexico, remains valid in Colorado, assuming no subsequent changes or revocation that would invalidate it under either state’s law. The question tests the principle of continuing validity of a will despite a change in domicile, a common concept in probate law rooted in the UPC’s approach to choice of law for will validity. This principle ensures that testators are not penalized for relocating and that their testamentary intentions are honored as long as the will was initially valid. The core concept is the extraterritorial recognition of a will’s validity based on its original proper execution.

In New Mexico, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of a will, and who is not provided for in the will. New Mexico law, specifically the New Mexico Probate Code, addresses the rights of such heirs. Generally, if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, that child is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. The purpose of this provision is to prevent accidental disinheritance. However, there are exceptions. If it appears from the will that the omission was intentional, or if the testator provided for the child outside the will in a manner that clearly shows an intention to disinherit, the pretermitted heir statute may not apply. The statute aims to ensure that a testator’s failure to mention a posthumously born or adopted child in their will is not presumed to be intentional disinheritance. The specific share is determined by calculating what the child would receive under New Mexico’s intestacy laws, which would involve distributing the estate among all surviving children and potentially a spouse. This calculation requires understanding the priority of heirs and the proportionate shares allocated under intestacy. For instance, if the estate were to pass intestate to two children, each would receive half. If there were a surviving spouse and two children, the spouse would typically receive a portion, and the children would divide the remainder. The pretermitted heir statute essentially grafts the intestacy distribution scheme onto the will for the benefit of the omitted child.

In New Mexico, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. The primary advantage of a holographic will is that it does not require witnesses to be valid. This is a significant departure from the requirements for an attested will, which typically requires at least two witnesses who sign the will in the testator’s presence. The New Mexico Probate Code, specifically NMSA § 45-2-502, governs the validity of wills. This statute explicitly allows for holographic wills, provided the signature and material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. The rationale behind this exception is that the testator’s own handwriting serves as a sufficient indicator of testamentary intent and authenticity, thereby reducing the risk of fraud or undue influence. Therefore, if a will is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, it is generally considered valid in New Mexico without the need for attesting witnesses. This contrasts with other states that may not recognize holographic wills or have stricter requirements. The question tests the understanding of this specific statutory provision and its practical application in validating a will.