A no-contest clause, also called an in terrorem clause, is a topic I have discussed previously in my blog. Readers may remember that an in terrorem clause is a written sentence in a testamentary instrument (will or trust) that is designed to threaten someone, into refraining from action, or ceasing to act. The phrase is typically used to refer to a clause in a will or trust that threatens to disinherit a beneficiary if that beneficiary challenges the terms of the will or trust.

The Uniform Probate Code, §2-517 allows for no contest clauses so long as the person challenging the will doesn’t have probable cause to do so. Some states, like Ohio, allow for “living probate” and “ante mortem” probate, which are statutory provisions which authorize testators to institute an adversary proceeding during their life to declare the validity of the will, in order to avoid later will contests.

Florida does not follow the Uniform Probate Code and does not recognize the enforceablility of in terrorem clauses in wills or in trusts. The Florida Probate Code, at section 732.517 provides that “A provision in a will purporting to penalize any interested person for contesting the will or instituting other proceedings relating to the estate is unenforceable.” Read the rest of this entry

California Court Refuses to Allow Trust No Contest Clause to Disinherit Minor Child Who Challenges Conduct of TrusteesIt is a shame when probate courts apply the law in a manner that hurts children. I applaud a recent decision from California that refused to apply a no-contest provision contained in a trust instrument that could have resulted in a minor child being disinerhited simply by virtue of the child’s guardian asking the court to examine the conduct of the trustees. The case Safai v. Safai, 164 Cal.App.4th 233, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 (2008) is a great example of a court’s careful application of the law in order to protect a child from disinheritance. The facts of the case are as follows:

Mansour Safai and Susanne Gahnstedt were married for approximately eight years and had one child, Nicolai, before their marriage deteriorated into divorce. Pursuant to the marital settlement agreement regarding property and spousal support, Mansour agreed to pay child support for Nicolai. Mansour was diagnosed with a terminal illness in 2004, and on or about January 24, 2006, executed the Trust and a Last Will and Testament. Mansour succumbed to his illness on February 9, 2006, and was survived by his brother, Max Safai; his sister, Massoumeh Safai; and his mother, Parvaneh Assefi. Read the rest of this entry

Alabama, Ohio, and 13 Other States Need to Follow Florida’s Lead

Many decedents in a variety of jurisdictions place no contest provisions in their wills in order to prevent their family members from fighting over the inheritance following death. These clauses, sometimes referred to as in terrorem clauses are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as ‘[a] provision designed to threaten one into action or inaction; esp., a testamentary provision that threatens to dispossess any beneficiary who challenges the terms of the will.’

For example, I have seen the clauses similar to this in many wills in an effort to avoid will contests:

“If any beneficiary under this will in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or challenges this will or any of its provisions, any share or interest in my estate given to that contesting beneficiary under this will is revoked and shall be disposed of in the same manner provided herein as if that contesting beneficiary has predeceased me without issue.” Read the rest of this entry