A. Except as otherwise provided in the Uniform Probate Code, the code applies to:

(1) the affairs and estates of decedents, missing persons and protected persons domiciled in New Mexico;

(2) the property of nonresidents located in New Mexico or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of New Mexico;

(3) incapacitated persons, minors and protected persons in New Mexico;

(4) survivorship and related accounts and similar property interests in New Mexico;

(5) the disclaimer of property interests by persons in New Mexico;

(6) certain kinds of governing instruments that are governed by the laws of New Mexico; and

(7) the apportionment of taxes on estates subject to tax by New Mexico.

B. The Uniform Probate Code does not create, enlarge, modify or diminish parental rights or duties pursuant to the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act [40-11A-101 to 40-11A-903 NMSA 1978], the Adoption Act [Chapter 32A, Article 5 NMSA 1978], the Children's Code [Chapter 32A NMSA 1978] or other law of New Mexico. The definition or use of terms in the Uniform Probate Code shall not be used to interpret, by analogy or otherwise, the same or other terms in the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act, the Adoption Act, the Children's Code or other law of New Mexico.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-1-301, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 1-301; 2011, ch. 124, § 6.

The 2011 amendment, effective January 1, 2012, provided that the Uniform Probate Code applies to disclaimers of property interests, governing instruments that are governed by the laws of New Mexico, and the apportionment of taxes on estates; added Subsection B to provide that the code does not create or alter parental rights or duties under other New Mexico laws and provided that the definitions of terms in the Uniform Probate Code cannot be used to define the same terms in other New Mexico laws.

Tort of interference with inheritance is an exception to the requirement that probate is the only forum for attacking the validity of a testamentary instrument and exists in a situation where the estate has been depleted so that there is no remedy in probate. Peralta v. Peralta, 2006-NMCA-033, 139 N.M. 231, 131 P.3d 81.

Where there was both an intervivos transfer of all the property of a decedent's estate prior to the decedent's death and a claim of improper influence in the revision of the decedent's will by the execution of a codicil, an attack on the codicil in a probate proceeding would not be an adequate remedy because the estate was devoid of assets. Plaintiff was not required to proceed in probate, but could proceed in a civil tort action of intentional interference with inheritance to attack the validity of the codicil. Peralta v. Peralta, 2006-NMCA-033, 139 N.M. 231, 131 P.3d 81.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 31 Am. Jur. 2d Absentees §§ 1, 3; 1 Banks § 376; 10 Am. Jur. 2d Executors and Administrators §§ 30, 32, 38 to 43; 39 Am. Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward § 26; 41 Am. Jur. 2d Incompetent Persons § 9; 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts §§ 326 to 328; 79 Am. Jur. 2d Wills §§ 852 to 858.

1 C.J.S. Absentees §§ 3, 4; 33 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 2; 39 C.J.S. Guardian and Ward § 4; 57 C.J.S. Mental Health § 165 et seq.; 90 C.J.S. Trusts §§ 218, 386; 95 C.J.S. Wills §§ 351 to 354, 587.