Gene Hackman, wife and dog found dead

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Well, leaving your kids out of your will entirely is certainly a way to make a loud statement. I still think it's a lousy thing to do. I don't care what his reasons were. He should have left some money to his kids.

IDK it's really something only those truly involved have the full understanding of it all.

If you take my situation my sister left my mom, went no contact in 2003 and has only seen my mom's side of the family including me once in 2009 at my grandfather's funeral. My mom has been adamant that whatever is left of her estate (of which truly no expectation is there for there to actually be anything of worth) is to be split 50/50 between my sister and I. Do I truly feel that is fair when at this point and assuming in the future I would be the one solely responsible for care for my mom? No I don't actually feel that's fair but I'm not angry over it either; I've known for more than 20 years at this point. It's what my mom has said she wanted. For her the "it's my child" overrules any actual presence in the life and caregiving.

For Gene Hackman's family perhaps it was a more mutual agreement long enough ago that the "kids" wouldn't be directly included in the will. The fact that the contact wasn't all that high leads me to believe they were not close for quite some time. While it's easy to say it's the wife who drove a wedge between them it's also not in reality that easy to know unless you're directly involved.

Regardless children aren't owed anything anymore than parents are owed anything (such as obligatory caregiving).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This may seem harsh to say but in this situation given the mental state of Gene I feel most for the dog in this case how absolutely horrifying that must have been for dog to slowly die and after having surgery (so they were already in a potentially pain-filled state) and how awful for the remaining dogs. With Gene the idea is he was less likely to have even realized his wife had passed but that dog in the crate

 

[mjkacmom]

This is not always true. My mother developed and subsequently died from Alzheimer’s. You’d never meet a more gentle person in your life. She never got angry or combative, as some medication commercials would have you think.

My mother was as gentle and lovely all through the end as she was all of her life, previous.

I do, of course, realize that many people do become angry and/or combative when they develop dementia and/or Alzheimer’s.

EDITED: Because the words “pervious” and “previous” are not the same thing!

My dad had Alzheimer’s, he could get very agitated and mean (scared the crap out of his landscapers (we used the same company). He died from a heart attack. His sister has Alzheimer’s, she’s like a giddy child. Alzheimer’s seems to take one of your personalities and runs with it.

 

[barkley]

That’s interesting. I was wondering what will happen with his estate since they seem to have concluded that she died a week before he did. Assuming she wouldn’t inherit since she was already deceased. And would his kids have claim as the next closest relatives.

it's been reported that his kids already have lawyers to pursue their rights. unless he has a provision in his will that disinherits them or names a successor beneficiary (we have this provision in our estate planning) then gene's kids should be next in line. a friend's grandfather had an estate plan that named a number of relatives that included his siblings and his own adult children (grandma had passed years earlier) all receiving certain percentages. within less than 24 hours one of the beneficiaries who had been in terrible health passed as well. after dealing with the funerals the family met with grandpa's lawyers and learned that he, knowing he was naming beneficiaries who some were very elderly/some not so but in very poor health, had put in a special provision that required any named beneficiary to survive him a minimum of 30 days or their portion went to grandpa's chosen successor for them.

 

[tvguy]

According to this article, Gene Hackman had a will drawn up in 2005 which left all of his assets to his wife. No mention of his children in the will.

That's a grade A butthole move right there. Used to think he was a pretty solid stand up guy. Now? Not so much.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...odycam-footage-autopsy-reports-200650377.html

We redid our wills when our youngest turned 18. The maze of options of situations to have written into the wills was mind boggling. Our kids don't get a penny until we are BOTH gone. Then they split everything evenly.
I couldn't write my kids out of my will, just not me. But my my wife has first dibs. And if she passes first, I have first dibs. But people have a right to give their money to who they want. Really no different to me than some heated discussions here on the DIS about kids and the cost of College. Some feel their obligation to their kids ends at age 18. Time for them to get out on their own. No more financial support. No help with College if they want to go to College. I could never do that. Both our kids have bedrooms here they could use if they need to. Our then 33 year old daughter moved back in for two months after selling her house and moving overseas. And someday she may move back in if she moves back. That is just what parents do IMHO.

 

[Imzadi]

While it's easy to say it's the wife who drove a wedge between them it's also not in reality that easy to know unless you're directly involved.

IF the wife created a wedge, it could have been inadvertent. She's about the same age as the oldest child. Probably any woman Gene married that was her age may have caused a rift with him. They could have thought he wasn't around to see them growing up, spend time with them, yet he found a replacement the same age to spend his life with. Hmmph!

 

[VandVsmama]

The fact that he wasn’t close with his kids…that’s on him. He lived for 95 years. Not all of those years included Alzheimer’s. Some news reports have said that the will was signed in 1995…30 yr ago. When he would have been 65.

There’s plenty of Hollywood celebrities out there who wouldn’t screw over their kids like that. I don’t care what everybody else’s excuses and logic are for why he might have done that. Actions speak louder than words. His actions and his choices, now that everyone knows them, say a lot.

He COULD have named the kids in the will and left them each $1. To, you know, acknowledge them and to show to the courts and the kids that he’s doing it on purpose and they really are getting nothing. Instead, he left them out entirely, like they didn’t exist.

He was a great actor. But apparently a selfish tool in his personal life. What happened to him and his wife is really awful. And him leaving his kids out of his will is a final “screw you” to his kids. I hope for their sake that the probate court determines that they get some of the estate after everything is settled.

And he was worth $80M but wouldn’t even use in-home health aides or anything? Good grief.

Marrying somebody who’s only a couple of years older than your kid is weird. Not illegal. But definitely a Hollywood thing. Whatever. Doesn’t matter anymore now since he’s dead. The whole thing is tragic.

He could have been safely cared for and looked after so he wouldn’t have been wandering around his house for days after his wife died…I can’t even imagine what a special kind of hell that would be to forget your wife was dead and then stumble across her body multiple times over and over and over again.

 

[dizneegirl]

Wow.

 

[Marrila]

The fact that he wasn’t close with his kids…that’s on him. He lived for 95 years. Not all of those years included Alzheimer’s. Some news reports have said that the will was signed in 1995…30 yr ago. When he would have been 65.

There’s plenty of Hollywood celebrities out there who wouldn’t screw over their kids like that. I don’t care what everybody else’s excuses and logic are for why he might have done that. Actions speak louder than words. His actions and his choices, now that everyone knows them, say a lot.

He COULD have named the kids in the will and left them each $1. To, you know, acknowledge them and to show to the courts and the kids that he’s doing it on purpose and they really are getting nothing. Instead, he left them out entirely, like they didn’t exist.

He was a great actor. But apparently a selfish tool in his personal life. What happened to him and his wife is really awful. And him leaving his kids out of his will is a final “screw you” to his kids. I hope for their sake that the probate court determines that they get some of the estate after everything is settled.

And he was worth $80M but wouldn’t even use in-home health aides or anything? Good grief.

Marrying somebody who’s only a couple of years older than your kid is weird. Not illegal. But definitely a Hollywood thing. Whatever. Doesn’t matter anymore now since he’s dead. The whole thing is tragic.

He could have been safely cared for and looked after so he wouldn’t have been wandering around his house for days after his wife died…I can’t even imagine what a special kind of hell that would be to forget your wife was dead and then stumble across her body multiple times over and over and over again.

You are free to guess and assume about the deceased all you want. But that's all it is, guessing and assuming.

 

[lanejudy]

The fact the kids were’t named in the will doesn’t mean he hadn’t made other financial arrangements for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hackman had set up trusts for his children long long ago and thus the will left the estate to his wife whom he expected to out-live him.