Unless supervised administration as described in Sections 3-501 through 3-505 [45-3-501 to 45-3-505 NMSA 1978] is involved, each proceeding before the district court or probate court is independent of any other proceeding involving the same estate. Petitions for orders of the district court may combine various requests for relief in a single proceeding. Except as required for proceedings which are particularly described in Sections 3-101 through 3-1204 [45-3-101 to 45-3-1204 NMSA 1978], no petition is defective because it fails to embrace all matters which might then be the subject of a final order. Proceedings for probate of wills or adjudications of no will may be combined with proceedings for appointment of personal representatives. A proceeding for appointment of a personal representative is concluded by an order making or declining the appointment.

History: 1953 Comp., § 32A-3-107, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 3-107.

Official comments. — See Commissioners on Uniform State Law official comment to 3-107 UPC.

Each petition considered final, appealable order. — Each petition in a probate file should ordinarily be considered as initiating an independent proceeding, so that an order disposing of the matters raised in the petition should be considered a final, appealable order. When the subject matter of two petitions overlap, it would generally be appropriate to consider both petitions as belonging to the same proceeding. In re Estate of Newalla, 1992-NMCA-084, 114 N.M. 290, 837 P.2d 1373; Wilson v. Fritschy, 2002-NMCA-105, 132 N.M. 785, 55 P.3d 997.

Where the district court appointed a temporary guardian and conservator to protect the person and assets of the incapacitated person who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease; after the conservator was appointed, the spouse of the incapacitated person and the spouse's attorney met with the incapacitated person to induce the incapacitated person to execute a new estate plan giving the spouse control of the incapacitated person's estate; the conservator filed a motion to prevent the spouse from interfering with its duties as conservator and guardian; the district court voided the new estate plan by an order entered on August 29, 2005; the district court appointed the conservator as permanent guardian and conservator by an order entered on October 7, 2005, which resolved all pending matters related to the petition for appointment of a guardian and conservator; the spouse filed a notice of appeal on November 4, 2005, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal on February 2, 2006; the incapacitated person died and the district court approved the conservator's report on March 4, 2011; and on April 4, 2011, the spouse appealed the district court's October 7, 2005 order, which voided the new estate plan, the October 7, 2005 order was final and appealable and the spouse's appeal on April 4, 2011 was untimely. Clinesmith v. Temmerman, 2013-NMCA-024, 298 P.3d 458, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-001.

Tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance will not lie when probate proceedings are available to address the just distribution of disputed assets and can otherwise provide adequate relief; 45-3-107 NMSA 1978 does not authorize an independent tort action where testator's testamentary plan replaced an earlier trust and pour-over will that deprived plaintiffs of a share of the testator's estate; in response to plaintiffs' challenge to the revised testamentary plan, the personal representative and trustee of the testamentary plan filed an interpleader action in district court; the settlement of the interpleader action was approved by the probate court; plaintiffs then sued defendants for tortious interference with plaintiffs' inheritance on the ground that defendants, who were testator's accountants, influenced testator to adopt the revised testamentary plan; and defendants were not beneficiaries under the revised testamentary plan or parties to the probate action, plaintiffs' tort action for intentional interference will not lie because probate proceedings were available to address the just distribution of the disputed assets and could have provided adequate relief. Wilson v. Fritschy, 2002-NMCA-105, 132 N.M. 785, 55 P.3d 997.

Order compelling blood test not appealable. — When the plaintiffs initiated a proceeding to determine whether a minor was an heir, a subsequent motion to compel a blood test did not institute a new proceeding as the dispute concerning the test was part and parcel of the proceeding to determine heirship, and an order thereunder was not appealable. Abalos v. Pino, 1993-NMCA-087, 115 N.M. 759, 858 P.2d 426.

Judgment invalidating will and removing representative appealable. — A judgment which effectively invalidated the provisions of a will disposing of a decedent's estate and removing a personal representative of the estate was a final, appealable order, even though the judgment reserved jurisdiction to determine how the estate should be distributed. Boyer v. Morrison, 1994-NMCA-005, 117 N.M. 74, 868 P.2d 1299.