Two Fridays ago, the Santa Fe sheriff’s office finally announced the results of their investigation into the deaths of Gene Hackman and his wife Betsy Arakawa. Arakawa and Hackman were found dead at their Santa Fe mansion in February, but it was a huge mystery as to how long they had been gone and what exactly happened in that house. The autopsies and investigation revealed nothing but profound tragedy: Arakawa passed away first, from the hantavirus. Hackman, a 95-year-old with advanced Alzheimer’s, was left alone to fend for himself for a week before he died of heart failure.
There were always a lot of questions about why Gene and Betsy didn’t have help – household staff for the upkeep on their mansion, or nursing staff to help Hackman. There were also questions about how Hackman’s three adult children were apparently not in communication with their father or Betsy, and no one in the Hackman family thought to check in with Arakawa on a weekly basis. Well, we’re getting a better picture of what looks like Hackman’s estrangement from his children – he did not leave them anything in his will, which he wrote many years ago.
Gene Hackman’s will has been unveiled — and the two-time Oscar-winner left every penny of his fortune to his wife, Betsy Arakawa — but there’s a big twist. The Hollywood legend made Betsy his sole beneficiary back in 1995, according to the docs, obtained by TMZ.
What’s interesting is that his three children — son Christopher and two daughters Leslie and Elizabeth — are not named in the will. It was all supposed to go to Betsy … but, the timing of their deaths could change where the money goes.
Betsy’s will leaves most of her assets to Gene, but there’s a provision which says if they died within 90 days of each other, it would be considered a simultaneous death, and in that case, her will provides all of her assets would go to charity. New Mexico is a community property state, so assuming there’s no prenup, Betsy’s estate could have a lot of money and her share would go to charity.
As for Gene’s estate … despite the fact he did not include his children in his will, they would presumably get his share since they are the most direct living heirs.
Andrew M. Katzenstein — a prominent California trust and estate attorney — has reportedly been hired by Gene’s son Chris, who’s the oldest sibling … indicating he may challenge the will.
Hackman discussed his difficult relationship with his children over the years … admitting he wasn’t around much during Chris’ formative years. He had gotten closer to his kids in more recent years.
TMZ cites 1995 as the year Hackman signed his will, which would mean that Hackman wrote it when he was 65 years old, four years after he married Betsy. But… People Magazine says that Gene and Betsy both updated their wills in 2005, but in general, everything was the same – Gene left everything to Betsy, and she left everything to Gene or to charity. I’m sure people wondered if she was a golddigger, given the age gap, but Betsy was really there with him in sickness and in health, to the very end. I’m just saying, I get why Gene made that decision at the time. Plus, most people of means leave the bulk of their estates to their spouses, and I’m sure Gene believed that Betsy would survive him. But it does speak volumes about Gene’s relationship with his three kids. People Mag’s experts say that it will be pretty difficult for Hackman’s kids to dispute their father’s will. I’m sure they’ll try though.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.
- Santa Fe, NM – The actor Gene Hackman (95) and his Wife Betsy Arakawa (63) were found dead in their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The authorities said an investigation was on going. Pictured: Gene Hackman BACKGRID USA 27 FEBRUARY 2025 BYLINE MUST READ: MediaPunch / BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
- Santa Fe, NM – The actor Gene Hackman (95) and his Wife Betsy Arakawa (63) were found dead in their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The authorities said an investigation was on going. Pictured: Gene Hackman, Betsy Arakawa BACKGRID USA 27 FEBRUARY 2025 BYLINE MUST READ: MediaPunch / BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
- Santa Fe, NM – The actor Gene Hackman (95) and his Wife Betsy Arakawa (63) were found dead in their home in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The authorities said an investigation was on going. Pictured: Gene Hackman, Betsy Arakawa BACKGRID USA 27 FEBRUARY 2025 BYLINE MUST READ: MediaPunch / BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
- New York, NY, New York, NY, 10/24/2007 – Gene Hackman leaving The Carlyle hotel in Manhattan. -PICTURED: Gene Hackman -PHOTO by: Jayme Oak/startraksphoto.com -BRS10798 #Event/#Photo= 2EB115E2189/2EB115E3004 Featuring: Gene Hackman Where: New York, New York, United States When: 24 Oct 2007 Credit: Jayme Oak/startraksphoto.com
Most of the money going to charity would be generous and helpful.
I’m sorry, but I side-eye any man who cuts out his three children from his will. It sounds like it wasn’t their fault they weren’t close to Gene since he stated in many interviews he was a crap father while they were growing up.
I wonder if Betsy might have alienated their father from them in later years, which is why no one called to check in on them. I hope the children get something from the estate.
I read that Betsy Arakawa tried to encourage Hackman to develop a better relationship with his children 30 years ago. Let’s not assume she was a negative influence.
One of the daughters said they would try calling weekly, only to be blocked by Betsey, esp. in the later years. So who knows? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To be fair, in the later years, he had Alzheimers; he wouldn’t have known them on the phone.
Agree. If he was a crap father while they were young, he should have been making up for that, not them.
I had a crap father who I cut out of my life 25 years ago. If he leaves me anything in his will I won’t be accepting it. I don’t Need his shadow looming over my life.
I feel the same way about my mom @Megan. I have a terrible relationship with my mother, and I’m assuming she left me nothing, and I am 100% ok with that.
@Megan,
The only person you’re punishing by not taking any money your father leaves you is yourself. Your resentment doesn’t hurt him when he’s dead, it only hurts you.
You don’t have to take it with forgiveness or any such attachments at all. But if any money would make a difference in your life, it could really benefit you.
If nothing else, therapy can help with the complexity surrounding this, whether or not you decide to accept anything from him in his will. Right now, though, it sounds like even the speculation is causing resentment. If he doesn’t leave you anything, your feelings will be vindicated; if he does, then you can reject him all over again.
I have a crap father too, so, yea, I know.
I agree with @Drea on this. If your crap father leaves you any money, grab the narrative and use it for something that gives joy to you and the people you love.
Yeah, me too. Because no one is suddenly stingy only in death. This means in life, he probably didn’t provide for them. I had a father who made millions for his clients and plenty for himself, but gambled it all away. I really struggled with no support and it was a terribly rough transition into young adulthood. I don’t think it’s cool or character-building to raise your children to have certain expectations (in my family, it was expected that we’d all go to university and live a middle-class life) and then not lift a finger to help them. Because the kids who do go on to succeed have often had a lot of help or benefitted from their parents’ networks.
Honestly, Boomers were the worst parents and are the worst grandparents.
Gene was not a boomer. Baby boom started in 1945. Gene would have been part of the Silent Generation.
@NotMika good point. The generation of silent, absent parents.
Honestly, parents of the Silent Generation are way worse than Boomers, in my experience.
Unless the children were actively antagonistic I agree. It’s quite hard to disinherit your kids in Scotland. The ‘bairn’s piece’ is well established. It’s sad that kids like Julian Lennon had to prise some money from Yoko via the courts because everything was left to the wife.
My dad did that. I expected nothing, but my brother was hurt. Apparently my dad & his second wife had set up a family trust around the time of their marriage, not bothering to tell my brother and me. I found out only by hiring a lawyer after his death as his wife wasn’t answering my calls. Per the lawyer, if my dad was of sound mind at the time of the signing of the document, then it stands. And he was; actually he was all the way through to the end. (Miserable SOB his whole life, but of sound mind.) Gene Hackman appears to have been the same, of sound mind when the will was written & again when it was updated. Let it go, Hackman family; you knew your dad, let it go.
I read that most of his estate was in a trust with recipients unknown at this point . He may have provided for them elsewhere.
Yes, I assumed all the big stuff was in a trust. For my parents, the family trust has the real estate and financial investments. The will only covers bank accounts, cars, household furniture and personal possessions.
I was surprised that they had no caregiver to help gene. He was suffering from dementia and ahe should have hired a full time nurse or caregiver. They should not have lived in such isolation
She also should have insisted he leave his children in his will.
Jesus Christ!
I hope the fact that Betsy passed before Gene gives the kids and open door to challenge the will. What a sad story
What’s to challenge, though? What legal point is there to challenge? This is what he wanted to do with his money.
In my jurisdiction in Australia, it’s called “family law provisions”. It doesn’t mean it will be successful. I assume that NM has similar provisions. Given that she pre-deceased him, they have a better chance because they are surviving next of kin. We also have case law which provides that you cannot disinherit a “lame duck” for no other reason.
In interviews, Hackman himself said that he was never around when his children were growing up and made zero attempt to develop relationships with them until Betsy encouraged him to when he was in his 60s.
I know we all love the man but, from his own admissions, he was a POS as a father.
This is such a common scenario for the biggest and brightest movie stars. Their children become an afterthought as they climb the greasy pole in Hollywood. And, for some reason, they never reconnect with them. One of my favorite stars from classic Hollywood, who is still alive and active today, Shirley MacClaine, had a toxic relationship with her only daughter and seems to be estranged from her even now. Bad parenting is an occupational hazard in cinema.
MacLaine!
It seems like successful people only excel in one area really well while other parts of their life are shite.
Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher became very close. They died within days of each other. Reynolds was so heartbroken or brought on her death.
Edit it brought on Reynolds death.
Such a sad situation all round.
She died first so presumably it depends on whether he had the same 90 day clause?
Sounds like lawyers will win either way.
Because she predeceased him surely her will is irrelevant. His kids should be able to claim something.
There was a 90 day clause in her will.
Wouldn’t that have to be mutual though? Was it in his?
Sometimes it is good to wait before passing judgement, two weeks ago his children were getting rip to shreds, about not helping their father, now the truth is out there.
So weird to me to think he needed to give money to his adult children who he has no relationship with. It doesn’t matter if he was a crap father. It’s his money, and they don’t “deserve” anything. Why are people weird about rich people’s money?
What they deserved was a father since he opted to have children. Leaving them something, even if just a keepsake to say I did actually care about you, would be a decent thing to do. Why do people not expect basic decency from the rich and famous?
Because for too many people, money is more important than family—and all relationships are transactional.
Because a lot of us got no basic decency from our non-rich parent (thank god my mother was a decent person; it was just my dad who was the a-hole).
ITA with you, Tuesday. Is it hurtful he was not a great father? Probably, yes. However, it is his choice to decide what he does with his own money, even if that decision is socially unkind.
Maybe the money going to chairs will help those who need it……. Family relations are complicated on both sides.
I don’t think it’s weird. It would give me great joy to make sure my children and grandchildren were financially comfortable after I died. I think it’s weirder not to feel that.
Yes!
It is not unusual for spouses to name only each other as their heirs. They are jokingly referred to as “I love you truly” wills. The belief being the surviving spouse would then be able to continue living as they did when married without experiencing a loss of assets. To disinherit someone like a child, most states require the will actually state you aren’t leaving them anything or they can challenge it.
The 90 day bit here is the twist. If New Mexico recognizes that as valid, then the estate goes wherever her Will directs but the kids could challenge if his will doesn’t specifically state they are excluded. If the state doesn’t recognize that, they’ll view her assets as going to him and him as dying intestate. The state’s intestate laws would then determine how his estate is divided between his children and other relatives
She died first. He thus inherits from her so his will takes precedence.
Not my area of practice but the little I remember from law school of wills & trusts is that if his will didn’t have the 90-day clause, it wouldn’t really matter since her pre-decease means it negates the grant of his will to her estate anyways so he’d be viewed as essentially having died intestate (without a will) and under the laws of intestacy, his estate most likely would go to his children and/or other living relatives. Would be weird if her will had it and his didn’t though, assuming they were drawn up around the same time. They may have used different attorneys though so there’s that.
They had the same attorney according to a local newspaper.
Not my area of law either, but @Lilpeppa40’s analysis is also what I assume to be the case.
But the reporting specifically says that there is a trust. Not a lawyer and it differs by state, but 1) the will points back to the trust, if it was done correctly 2) the trust should state what happens if the successor trustee (Betsy) dies, eg it goes to charity? and 3) it has provisions that discourage anyone from challenging it, unlike a will.
With 80 million at stake, I’d think this is all sorted already by the trust. No probate, no challenges, the end. No comment on the morality of it vis a vis the children because who knows what their relationship with Gene or Betsy was?
Obviously, the son retaining a lawyer means he will likely challenge on family law grounds. The fact is that they are next of kin because where else would the property of the estate be granted? To the state? The children were lucky that she died first.
This doesn’t seem odd to me. My parents will says that the other inherits everything and then the kids inherit after both are deceased. We also told our parents that its their money and there’s no expectation they’ll be anything for us.
Also note there’s no comment in the article that the Gene’s kids are surprised by this.
The oldest, a son, has lawyered up which is a wise move considering the uncertainty of the situation.
I realize the laws are different in each state, but in Florida if a spouse dies first, their will is irrelevant because everything goes to the surviving spouse by default. It’s only when the last spouse dies that the will for the last spouse comes into play.
Really? Now that is interesting. So if there were a second marriage a spouse couldn’t say they wanted this or that going to grandchildren from that first marriage or charity or whatever, it automatically goes to their second spouse? Wild.
I was a caregiver – and My siblings did next to nothing. I watched my mother die while they got to pretend it wasn’t happening. When she passed I had a modest amount of money left and did evenly split that regardless, as those were her wishes
But as the person in the wife’s position with no help – my lizard brain would agree F them kids
Incidentally they weren’t entitled under law. This will depend on if the terms of the will/trust provide for a scenario where the wife predeceases or not. I doubt it does not, but if so then generally most states will treat it as if there were no will and divide equally to the nearest blood survivors
Not that this crew deserves it. There can be bad parents. There can also be bad children. Leaving your dad to rot and expecting his fortune…. That falls to the latter
Yeah, I’m no lawyer, but in my family, I’ve been through 2 will challenge lawsuits (as witness, not challenger), both of which failed. The kids are going to have a difficult time challenging the will because the courts will look upon the estrangement between father and child as a sign the father was not inclined to give them anything.
The courts are not going to say “your father was a jerk and you deserve his money to make up for that” — they will look only at the testator’s intent. Was it manipulated? Was it ignored? It doesn’t seem like either in this case.
The kids will likely only see anything if Gene’s will leads the state to determine he died intestate.
It doesn’t work that way under NSW AU law. But I know nothing about the law in that US state, or any state frankly.
As a society we need to have honest discussions about caregiving and what that involves for both the person giving care and the person receiving care. Dementia affects everyone who has it differently and no two people have identical experiences. Some people with dementia turn on loved ones. Some become paranoid towards people they love or are deeply agitated by strangers. Some cling desperately to particular people while some cannot connect with anyone. People decline cognitively and physically at different rates and lose different ADLs at different rates. Covid was also a horror for anyone providing care for an elderly person and the consequences of the lockdowns are still reverberating. Many people were willing to do anything to avoid even the possibility of covid exposure. For every loud criticism of Gene’s children and Betsy, there is a gentler possibility. (Maybe Gene became agitated when contacted by certain people and people stopped calling to avoid upsetting him. Maybe Betsy didn’t employer caregivers because Gene was physically able to complete ADLs with prompts and strangers agitated him). No one not directly involved knows. Sometimes caregiving involves choosing the less bad option.
His children are going to fiercely contest that will – they most certainly want $80 million!
Very well said, @Tn Democrat.
The caregiver can become ill physically and emotionally. Genes wife got sick and died.It can become a necessity to hire a caregiver to prevent tragic situation of the hackmans
From my experience: Things can get bad really fast and it’s difficult to plan then. Betsy was relatively young and Gene’s Alzheimers may have been in early-stages for a long time.
My husband was very private and didn’t want me to talk with family or neighbors about his cancer. In my weekly Sunday zoom with my family, I’d just answer, “Okay” when asked how he was doing. … Until treatment stopped working, he went into crisis, and we had to ask for help. The beginning of the end.
It’s difficult to accept the worst and plan for it. Maybe Betsy was going to start getting help and then she got sick herself. Hantavirus mimics a bad cold or flu and it’s easy to not take it seriously. It’s rare, but not uncommon in the southwest. I live in Southern California desert and, not too long ago, a woman who cleaned out her unoccupied family cabin died of it.
As for the will. It can be put off for such a long time. Something else to add to the to-do list. I’m still dealing with dumb stuff like getting DMV to change title of husband’s car to me. So much paperwork!
Agreed. I’m executor of my mom’s estate—and the paperwork of changing ownership alone is something else. 😳😳
@TnDemocrat – a lot of good points here (speaking as someone experienced with dementia/Alzheimer’s in my family, and also a former caregiver). As you say, the range of possible behaviors is very variable. One of my family members was so locked within herself her last couple of years, she didn’t speak, and barely responded to people around her. There was no meaningful way to communicate, even in person.
The only thing we know for sure is what Gene Hackman is on record saying, that he was a lousy father to his kids. And if he was lousy to his kids, very possibly also lousy to their mother, herself his wife of 30 years, which could color the children’s perspectives. We have no idea what attempts those children made to be in touch through the years, or if he welcomed the attempts. We don’t know if Betsy was open to providing information and communicating openly with other family members, especially in later years as he deteriorated. She had the added burden of protecting the privacy of a high profile individual. The reality of his mental state wasn’t publicly known, and we don’t know how much was known among the rest of his family.
There’s many possible scenarios, and we don’t know enough to determine who the good, or possibly bad, actors might be here, or how valid or unreasonable their motivations.
I really don’t like questioning the children, if they tried to contact their father. I experience similar situation with my daughters – the younger one has a decent relationship with her father (my ex) and the older one almost none whatsoever. He was a crappy dad when we lived together and over the years we are living separetely is evident he doesn’t understands her, doesn’t want to spend quality time with her and frankly, why it should be her job to try to make the steps towards him. He owes her so much. It breaks my heart, but I understand when she says the no contact situation is in the future for them. In my opinion it’s always the parent’s job to make an effort to fix the things.