N.M. Stat. § 45-2-513 (2026)

tangible personal property.
   A will may refer to a written statement or list to dispose of items of tangible personal
property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will, other than money. To be
admissible under this section as evidence of the intended disposition, the writing must
be signed by the testator and must describe the items and the devisees with reasonable
certainty. The writing may be:

   A. referred to as one to be in existence at the time of the testator's death;

   B. prepared before or after the execution of the will;

   C. altered by the testator after its preparation; or

   D. a writing that has no significance apart from its effect on the dispositions made by
the will.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-2-513, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 2-513; repealed
and reenacted by Laws 1993, ch. 174, § 36.

                                     ANNOTATIONS
Official comments. — See Commissioners on Uniform State Law official comment to
2-513 UPC.

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1993, ch. 174, § 36 repealed 45-2-513 NMSA
1978, as enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 2-513, and enacted a new section, effective
July 1, 1993.

Cross references. — For contracts to alter distribution, see 45-3-912 NMSA 1978.

Exhibits created no conflict with dispositive provisions of will. — Where a list of
exhibits introduced included a promissory note, a handwritten draft from an attorney's
file relating to a bequest, and several handwritten lists of property which were to be
embodied in affidavits that had not been completed at the time of the testator's death,
such exhibits are admissible as documents contemplated by this section and they do
not create a conflict with the dispositive provisions of the will. In re Estate of Shadden,
1979-NMCA-078, 93 N.M. 274, 599 P.2d 1071, cert. denied, 93 N.M. 172, 598 P.2d
215, overruled on other grounds by Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Sproul, 1993-NMSC-051,
116 N.M. 254, 861 P.2d 935 (decided under former law).

Oral testimony cannot remedy will's defects. — Since it is undisputed that the
decedent failed in his will to leave written, signed instructions identifying his intended
beneficiaries, extrinsic, oral testimony was not admissible to rectify defects in the will
itself or to overcome the decedent's failure to leave other proper written instructions
concerning his beneficiaries. In re Estate of Boyer, 1994-NMCA-005, 117 N.M. 74, 868
P.2d 1299.

Devise of "personal property". — Absent language in the will indicating an intent to
the contrary, the term "personal property" includes both tangible and intangible personal
property. In re Estate of Russell, 1994-NMCA-145, 119 N.M. 43, 888 P.2d 489.

Law reviews. — For article, "Intestate Succession and Wills Law: The New Probate
Code," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 25 (1975).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 79 Am. Jur. 2d Wills §§ 179 to 182, 185,
194.

Testamentary character of memorandum or other informal writing not testamentary on
its face regarding ownership or disposition of specific personal property, 117 A.L.R.
1327.

Validity of will written on disconnected sheets, 38 A.L.R.2d 477.

Validity, construction and effect of bequest or devise to a person's estate, or to the
person or his estate, 10 A.L.R.3d 483.

94 C.J.S. Wills §§ 87, 161; 96 C.J.S. Wills §§ 1165, 1178.
45-2-514. Contracts concerning succession.
    A. A contract to make a will or devise or not to revoke a will or devise or to die
intestate, if executed after the effective date of this article, may be established only by:

       (1)    provisions of a will stating material provisions of the contract;

       (2)    an express reference in a will to a contract and extrinsic evidence proving
the terms of the contract; or

       (3)    a writing signed by the decedent evidencing the contract.

   B. The execution of a joint will or of mutual wills does not create a presumption of a
contract not to revoke the will or wills.

History: 1978 Comp., § 45-2-514, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 174, § 37.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Official comments. — See Commissioners on Uniform State Law official comment to
2-514 UPC.

Standard of proof of contract to make a will. — Contestants are bound to establish
the existence of a contract to make a will by clear and convincing evidence. Naranjo v.
Armijo, 2001-NMSC-027, 130 N.M. 714, 31 P.3d 372.

Applicability of Uniform Probate Code. — Since the testators' wills were drafted in
1973, three years before the effective date of the Uniform Probate Code, any
contractual provisions of the wills were not subject to the provisions of this section.
Bailey v. Caldwell, 1996-NMCA-063, 121 N.M. 854, 918 P.2d 1354.

Evidence of oral contract to devise family farm. — Letters between decedent and
decedent's sibling were sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and constituted
evidence of an oral contract between the siblings to devise the family farm to the
survivor. Varoz v. Varoz, 2008-NMSC-027, 144 N.M. 7, 183 P.3d 151.

Evidence of contractual wills. — Invalid will may provide sufficient evidence to
establish contract if it also establishes the existence of the agreement, the essential
terms of the agreement, and is signed by the party to be charged. In re Estate of
Vincioni, 1985-NMCA-013, 102 N.M. 576, 698 P.2d 446, cert. denied 102 N.M. 613, 698
P.2d 886.

Contractual will established. — Evidence that plaintiff gave of plaintiff's time and effort
to clean and repair house so as to make it easier to keep in exchange for a promise to
transfer the house at the time of decedent's death, decedent's statement in decedent's
letter to plaintiff that the will that decedent had shown plaintiff was "good as gold if [you]
help[ed] me get the house in shape so it [would] be easy to keep clean," which was
done and settled, established a contract. Aragon v. Boyd, 1969-NMSC-016, 80 N.M. 14,
450 P.2d 614.

Contractual will not established. — Use of the words "we," "us," and "our" throughout
the contested will did not establish a contract to make a will but were merely
expressions which would be used in any joint will, nor did paragraph stating that parties
agreed that the will’s provisions should not be changed except by our mutual consent
establish a contract not to revoke a will, since neither that paragraph nor any other
section of the will evidenced a promise between either testator and a third party, and the
provision bequeathing the decedent’s property to the surviving spouse "absolutely" bore
this out as the plain meaning of the document. Naranjo v. Armijo, 2001-NMSC-027, 130
N.M. 714, 31 P.3d 372.

A joint will between the decedent and decedent's first spouse did not meet the statutory
criteria for establishing a contractual and irrevocable will, since none of the statutory
provisions for doing so were met and, while there was no question of its being a joint
and contemporaneously executed will, neither of these facts created a presumption of a
contract not to revoke. In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032, 113 N.M. 691, 831 P.2d
990, cert. denied 113 N.M. 690, 831 P.2d 989.

Effect of contractual will.— A contractual will is binding on a survivor once that
survivor accepts the benefits from the first deceased's will. Foulds v. First Nat'l Bank,
1985-NMSC-092, 103 N.M. 361, 707 P.2d 1171.

Where estate of surviving spouse who remarries disposed of. — Joint and mutual
last will and testament of spouses that was made irrevocable and provided for a life
estate in the survivor and that all the estate upon the death of the survivor should go to
the nieces and nephews of both testators disposed of entire estate of surviving spouse,
even where the surviving spouse had remarried and was also beneficiary of
predeceased second spouse's estate. In re Will of McDowell, 1970-NMSC-080, 81 N.M.
562, 469 P.2d 711.