Common Disaster & Survivorship Clauses – The Hackman Hypothetical

Jaclyn Finestone

Note: The following is a fictional case study based on unconfirmed media reports intended solely for educational purposes.

The Scenario: A Tragic Loss

On February 26, 2025, legendary Academy Award winning Actor, Gene Hackman, and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, were found deceased in their New Mexico home. No foul play was suspected.

According to authorities, Mr. Hackman likely passed away on February 18, 2025, based on pacemaker data. Early reporting indicated that the date of Ms. Arakawa’s death was uncertain. However, subsequent reports have since suggested that Ms. Arakawa passed away before Mr. Hackman.

Mr. Hackman is survived by three children from a prior relationship.

The Wills:

In June 2005, the couple executed Wills, each naming the other as the sole beneficiary of their respective Estates. Mr. Hackman’s Will did not include a survivorship or common disaster clause. Ms. Arakawa’s Will included a survivorship clause stating that if she and Mr. Hackman died within 90 days of each other, their deaths would be considered simultaneous, and her Estate would be donated to charity.

The Legal Dilemma: How Would This Play Out in Alberta?

Let’s imagine this tragic event occurred in Alberta. How would the Estates be distributed, when the order of death is uncertain, under Alberta’s Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010 c W-12.2 (“Wills and Succession Act”)

Ms. Arakawa’s Estate

Since her Will includes a 90-day survivorship clause, and Mr. Hackman died within that window (or the order of death is uncertain), Ms. Arakawa’s Estate would bypass Mr. Hackman and pass entirely to charity, per her wishes. Her Estate would consist of:

• Any asset solely in her name; and
• 50% of any jointly held asset (e.g. the New Mexico home) because in circumstances of uncertainty, jointly owned assets are treated as tenants in common – each party owning an equal, divisible share, with no right of survivorship.

Mr. Hackman’s Estate

Mr. Hackman’s Will left everything to Ms. Arakawa, with no alternate beneficiary named. Since she is considered to have predeceased him (due to uncertainty), his Estate would fall under intestacy succession provisions as follows such that his Estate would be equally distributed amongst his three children. Mr. Hackman’s Estate would consist of:

• Any asset in his sole name; and
• 50% of any jointly held assets with Ms. Arakawa.

Key Estate Planning Lessons

This hypothetical scenario underscores several critical points when it comes to Estate planning:

1. Always include alternate beneficiaries – If your primary beneficiary is unable to inherit, your Estate still needs a clear plan.
2. Name alternate Personal Representatives – Your Estate needs someone to step in if your original Executor cannot act.
3. Include a Common Disaster and Survivorship Clause – These clauses can address simultaneous or near simultaneous deaths and reduce uncertainty.
4. Consult experienced legal counsel – Don’t leave your legacy to chance. Thoughtful Estate planning can avoid unnecessary confusion and litigation.

Avoid the Hackman Dilemma

At Vogel LLP, we can guide you through every step of creating a Will that protects your intentions and your loved ones. Contact the experienced Wills and Estate lawyers at Vogel LLP to ensure your testamentary wishes are honoured.