Oldham v. Oldham
149 N.M. 215
N.M.2011Background
- Husband died during pendency of divorce; Will and Revocable Trust executed on same day; both instruments irrevocable upon death by their terms.
- Section 40-4-20(B) requires the domestic relations court to continue and conclude property, support, and paternity matters as if both spouses survived, when one dies before final decree.
- Probate and domestic relations proceedings intersect: Son seeks to invalidate Will/Trust and be personal representative; Wife seeks appointment, arguing priority via Will.
- District court held that only a final divorce decree can revoke instruments; Will and Trust remained unrevoked and Wife appointed as personal representative.
- Court of Appeals reversed on issues of representation and validity; this Court granted certiorari to address whether 40-4-20(B) can revoke instruments and whether Wife is disqualified.
- Court holds: 40-4-20(B) cannot statutorily revoke decedent’s will/trust; Wife disqualified from serving as personal representative during the remainder of DR proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a Section 40-4-20(B) marital property judgment revoke a will or trust? | Son argues yes via UPC revocation provisions. | Oldham argues no; revocation requires strict UPC/UTC formalities. | No; 40-4-20(B) cannot revoke instruments. |
| Does Section 45-2-804 allow posthumous revocation by divorce? | Son relies on divorce revocation provision to revoke will/trust. | Wife argues revocation by divorce post-death is inappropriate; instruments become irrevocable at death. | Not applicable posthumously; revocation by divorce provisions do not apply after death. |
| What is the proper procedural sequence for defining the estate when death occurs in a pending divorce? | Estate should be probated per UPC after DR determination. | Estate defined through 40-4-20(B) before probate. | 40-4-20(B) proceedings must be concluded before probate. |
| Can Wife be appointed personal representative during the DR proceedings given a conflict of interest? | Wife should be preferred due to Will nomination. | Wife is disqualified due to direct adverse interests; needs independent representative. | Wife disqualified; substitute personal representative required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romine v. Romine, 100 N.M. 403 (1983) (death terminates pending divorce actions; concurrent jurisdiction invalid)
- Karpien v. Karpien, 146 N.M. 188 (2009) (40-4-20(B) governs division; intestacy outcomes differ when spouse dies)
- Albuquerque Nat'l Bank v. Johnson, 74 N.M. 69 (1964) (revocation of wills via statutory avenues recognized; strong formalities)
- Cable v. Wells Fargo Bank N.M., N.A., 148 N.M. 127 (2010) (trust terms and settlor intent control revocation analyses)
- In re Estate of Gushwa, 145 N.M. 286 (2008) (UPC/UTC revocation mechanisms and strict formalities)
- Sanchez v. Martinez (In re Estate of Jose C. Martinez), 127 N.M. 650 (1999) (UPC revocation mechanisms examined in NM context)