N.M. Stat. § 45-1-102 (2026)

A. The Uniform Probate Code shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its
underlying purposes and policies.

   B. The underlying purposes and policies of the Uniform Probate Code are:

     (1)    to simplify, clarify and modernize certain laws concerning the affairs of
decedents, missing persons, protected persons, minors and incapacitated persons;

      (2)    to discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in distribution of
the decedent's property;

        (3)    to promote a speedy and efficient system for the settlement and
distribution of the estate of the decedent;

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

      (5)     to provide a comprehensive system of methods of disclaiming interests in
property;
       (6)    to facilitate the use and enforcement of governing instruments;

       (7)    to apportion taxes on estates; and

       (8)    to make uniform the law among the states.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-1-102, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 1-102; 2011, ch.
124, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2011 amendment, effective January 1, 2012, expanded the purpose of the Uniform
Probate Code to include the purposes of facilitating survivorship and related property
interests, providing methods of disclaiming interests in property, apportioning taxes on
estates, and making uniform the law among the states.

Liberal construction. — The Uniform Probate Code should be liberally construed to
meet its policies, which include effectuating the intent of the decedent. In re Estate of
Kerouac, 1998-NMCA-159, 126 N.M. 24, 966 P.2d 191, cert. quashed, 128 N.M. 150,
990 P.2d 824 (1999).

Distribution of estate of protected person. — Where, during the lifetime of the
decedent, the conservator of the property and affairs of the decedent discovered an
executed inter vivos trust agreement which provided for the distribution of the trust
estate after the decedent’s death to a cousin and three step-children; the conservator
did not discover any assets or property that the decedent transferred to the trust or any
documents identifying the trust assets; the conservator also found an unexecuted pour-
over will that provided for the transfer of the decedent’s probate assets to the trust upon
the decedent’s death; before the decedent died, the conservator filed a petition for
instructions with the district court regarding whether the conservator should transfer the
decedent’s assets to the trust; before the district court heard the conservator’s petition,
the decedent died leaving an estate of seven million dollars; one of the decedent’s
intestate heirs instituted a separate probate proceeding in district court; and the district
court in the conservatorship proceedings determined that the probate court should
decide the issue of whether to transfer the decedent’s assets to the trust and terminated
the protective proceeding without deciding the petition for instructions, the proper forum
to determine whether to fund the decedent’s trust and give effect to the decedent’s
pour-over will was in the probate court. In re Borland, 2012-NMCA-108, 288 P.3d 912.