Should I Include a No-Contest Clause in My Will? (w/Examples) + FAQs

Yes, in most cases, including a no-contest clause in your will is a smart move — but only if you understand the rules in your state and draft it the right way. A no-contest clause (also called an in terrorem clause) tells your beneficiaries: if you challenge this will and lose, you get nothing.

Here’s the problem. Under the Uniform Probate Code §§ 2-517 and 3-905, a no-contest clause is unenforceable if the person who files the challenge has “probable cause.” That means beneficiaries in many states can still fight your will without penalty — as long as they have a reasonable legal basis. And in Florida, no-contest clauses are completely unenforceable under Florida Statute § 732.517. Between 1% and 3% of all wills filed in the U.S. face some form of legal challenge, and tens of thousands of wills are impacted by contests every year.

Here’s what you’ll learn in this article:

• ⚖️ What a no-contest clause is, how it works, and what triggers it
• 🗺️ How enforcement rules differ from state to state — and which states won’t enforce these clauses at all
• 📋 Real scenarios showing how no-contest clauses play out in blended families, unequal distributions, and capacity disputes
• ⚠️ The most common mistakes people make when drafting or relying on a no-contest clause
• ✅ Step-by-step guidance on when to include one, when to skip it, and what alternatives exist

What Is a No-Contest Clause?

A no-contest clause is a provision in a will or trust that penalizes a beneficiary who challenges the document. The penalty is almost always total disinheritance. If a beneficiary files a legal challenge — such as claiming the will was created under undue influence, fraud, or lack of mental capacity — and the challenge fails, the clause strips away whatever inheritance that beneficiary was set to receive.

The Latin name for this clause is in terrorem, which means “by way of threat.” That name captures the core purpose. The clause exists to scare beneficiaries into accepting the terms of the will, even if they disagree with how assets are divided. It does not prevent anyone from filing a lawsuit. It only controls what happens if that lawsuit fails.

Here is a sample of what this clause looks like in plain legal language:

“If any beneficiary under this will seeks to obtain in any proceeding in any court an adjudication that this will or any of its provisions is void, or seeks otherwise to void, nullify, or set aside this will or any of its provisions, then the right of that person to take any interest given to him or her by this will shall be determined as it would have been determined had such person predeceased the execution of this will without issue.”

This language treats a losing challenger as if they died before the will was ever signed. Their share then passes to the remaining beneficiaries or to a backup plan named in the will.

Another common approach uses broader language designed to sweep in both direct and indirect challenges:

“If any person shall, in any manner, directly or indirectly, attempt to contest or oppose the validity of this agreement, (including any amendment to this agreement) or commences, continues, or prosecutes any legal proceedings to contest the validity of this agreement…that person shall be deemed to have predeceased me.”

The key distinction between these two examples is scope. A narrowly drafted clause targets only direct challenges to the will’s validity. A broadly drafted clause tries to cover any legal action related to the will or trust — including indirect actions. Courts in most states strictly construe these clauses, meaning they will enforce only what the language clearly covers.

Why the Clause Only Works If the Beneficiary Has Something to Lose

A no-contest clause has one critical weakness: it only deters people who stand to lose something. If you completely disinherit someone — say, one of your adult children — the clause has zero power over that person. They have nothing at stake. Whether they sue and lose or do nothing at all, the result is the same: they receive nothing.

This is why experienced estate planning attorneys recommend leaving a meaningful bequest to any person you expect might challenge your will. The bequest must be large enough that the beneficiary would seriously hesitate before risking it. A token gift of $100 will not create enough deterrent effect. A gift of $50,000 or $100,000 — depending on the size of the estate — creates real financial risk for someone thinking about filing a lawsuit.

For example, say a father has two children and wants to leave 80% of a $2 million estate to his daughter and 20% to his son. The son might feel cheated and want to contest. But if the will contains a no-contest clause, the son must weigh the $400,000 he is set to receive against the cost and uncertainty of a legal challenge. If he sues and loses, that $400,000 disappears.

This calculus changes when the inheritance is too small to matter. If the son were set to receive just $5,000, he might decide the risk of losing $5,000 is worth the potential reward of overturning the entire distribution. Estate planners call this the “golden handcuffs” strategy — giving just enough to make the no-contest clause meaningful.

How States Handle No-Contest Clauses

There is no federal law that governs no-contest clauses. This is entirely a state-by-state issue. Each state falls into one of three general categories: states that enforce the clause unless there is probable cause, states that enforce it strictly with few exceptions, and states that refuse to enforce it at all.

Probable Cause States

The majority of states follow the approach laid out in the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). Under UPC §§ 2-517 and 3-905, a no-contest clause is enforceable — unless the person bringing the challenge had “probable cause.” Probable cause means the facts known to the challenger at the time of filing would lead a reasonable person to believe there is a substantial likelihood that the challenge would succeed.

States that follow or have adopted the UPC include Alaska, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and many others. California follows a version of this model under Probate Code §§ 21310–21315. In California, a no-contest clause is enforceable only against direct contests brought without probable cause. A “direct contest” is a challenge that alleges the will or trust is invalid based on forgery, lack of due execution, lack of capacity, menace, duress, fraud, undue influence, or revocation.

The Key v. Tyler decision from the California Court of Appeals in 2019 showed that California courts are willing to interpret these clauses broadly. In that case, the court found that even a trustee’s defense of an invalid trust amendment counted as a “direct contest” that triggered the no-contest clause. The court stated that “nothing in the language of Section 21310 or 21311 suggests that a direct contest is limited to an action that a beneficiary initiates.”

States like Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Mississippi add a layer by also looking at the challenger’s subjective good faith — not just whether objective probable cause exists. In Iowa, for example, the court in Matter of Estate of Workman (2017) required both probable cause and good faith. In Mississippi, the Estate of Roosa v. Roosa case (2019) showed that courts will not enforce a no-contest clause if the challenger acted in good faith, even if the underlying challenge ultimately failed.

Strict Enforcement States

New York stands out as the most prominent state that enforces no-contest clauses strictly — regardless of whether the challenger had probable cause. Under New York EPTL § 3-3.5, a no-contest clause is operative “despite the presence or absence of probable cause for such contest.”

However, even New York carves out specific exceptions. A beneficiary will not trigger the clause if they:

• Challenge the will on the grounds of forgery or revocation by a later will (if they have probable cause)
• Are an infant or legally incompetent person
• Object to the court’s jurisdiction
• Disclose information to the court about the will
• Refuse to join in a petition for probate
• Conduct preliminary examinations of witnesses under SCPA § 1404
• File a construction proceeding to interpret the will after it is admitted to probate

The SCPA § 1404 safe harbor is especially important in New York. It lets potential challengers interview the attorney who drafted the will, the attesting witnesses, and sometimes even the nominated executor — all without triggering the no-contest clause. This gives beneficiaries a way to investigate before deciding whether to formally contest.

Non-Enforcement States

Florida is the only state that flatly refuses to enforce no-contest clauses. Florida Statute § 732.517 states: “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.” A separate statute, Florida Statute § 736.1108(1), extends this prohibition to trusts.

Indiana was in the same category for decades. But in 2018, Indiana reversed course when the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 247, which made no-contest clauses enforceable — with a “good cause” exception. If a court finds the challenge was brought for good cause, the clause will not be enforced. That means Florida now stands alone as the only state where a no-contest clause is completely unenforceable.

Vermont is sometimes listed alongside these states because it has no statutory or case law directly addressing enforcement. The absence of clear law makes the outcome unpredictable in that state.

Georgia’s Unique Approach

Georgia takes a distinctive position. In the landmark case of Duncan v. Rawls (812 S.E.2d 647, Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Georgia Court of Appeals enforced an in terrorem clause against beneficiaries who challenged a trust based on undue influence — even though those beneficiaries argued they acted in good faith and with probable cause. The court held that it was the legislature’s job, not the court’s, to create a good faith or probable cause exception.

However, the 2022 Georgia Supreme Court decision in Slosberg v. Giller added an important wrinkle. The court held that a no-contest clause cannot be used to block a challenge alleging that the clause itself was the product of undue influence. In other words, if the very act of inserting the no-contest clause was coerced, the clause does not protect itself.

State-by-State Enforcement Overview

Real-World Scenarios: How No-Contest Clauses Play Out

Scenario 1: The Blended Family

Mark is 72 years old and has two adult children from his first marriage, Lisa and Tom. He has been married to his second wife, Diana, for 15 years. Mark’s will leaves 50% of his estate to Diana, 30% to Lisa, and 20% to Tom. The will includes a no-contest clause.

After Mark dies, Lisa believes Diana manipulated Mark into giving her a larger share than he originally intended. Lisa wants to file an undue influence claim. Her decision depends on the state.

Blended families are among the most common situations where no-contest clauses are recommended. Stepchildren and second spouses often have conflicting expectations, and a no-contest clause gives the will-maker a tool to keep the peace. Estate planners working with blended families should also consider separate trusts, bloodline trusts, and trust protector provisions alongside a no-contest clause.

Scenario 2: The Disinherited Child

Karen has three children. She leaves her entire estate equally to two of them and completely cuts out her third child, Jason, due to a long-standing family conflict. The will contains a no-contest clause.

This is why estate planners recommend leaving some inheritance to a potentially disgruntled heir, specifically to give the no-contest clause teeth. Without something at stake, the clause is just ink on paper.

Scenario 3: Mental Capacity Challenge

Robert is 88 years old and has been diagnosed with moderate dementia. His caretaker, Nancy, helps him revise his will to leave her 60% of his estate, reducing his children’s shares significantly. The will includes a no-contest clause.

In this type of case, the strength of the medical evidence is crucial. If Robert’s doctor documented cognitive decline before the will was revised, the children have strong grounds for a probable cause argument. If no medical records exist, the path is much harder.

No-Contest Clauses in Wills vs. Trusts

No-contest clauses appear in both wills and trusts, but there are important differences in how courts treat them.

A will goes through probate — a public, court-supervised process. During probate, a judge oversees the administration of the estate, and any challenges are filed with the probate court. No-contest clauses in wills are subject to whatever state probate code governs the estate.

A trust, on the other hand, typically avoids probate. A revocable living trust operates privately, and trust disputes are handled through separate court proceedings. Because trusts are not subject to the same probate rules, some states apply different standards to no-contest clauses in trusts compared to wills.

In California, no-contest clauses in both wills and trusts are governed by the same Probate Code sections (§§ 21310–21315). The rules are identical: the clause is enforceable only against direct contests brought without probable cause.

In Florida, no-contest clauses are unenforceable in both wills and trusts. Florida Statute § 732.517 covers wills, and Florida Statute § 736.1108(1) covers trusts.

In New York, EPTL § 3-3.5 governs no-contest clauses in wills and includes specific safe harbor exceptions. However, New York courts have struggled with whether the same safe harbor provisions extend to inter vivos (living) trusts. The law is less settled for trusts, which creates additional risk for beneficiaries considering a challenge.

One key difference between wills and trusts involves fiduciary misconduct. In almost every state, a no-contest clause cannot prevent a beneficiary from suing a trustee or executor for breach of fiduciary duty. A challenge to how the estate or trust is administered is different from a challenge to the validity of the document itself. If a trustee is stealing assets or mismanaging funds, beneficiaries can take legal action without triggering the clause.

The Missouri Supreme Court case of Knopik v. Shelby Investments (2020) illustrates this distinction. The trust’s no-contest clause attempted to bar not only challenges to the trust’s validity, but also claims of fiduciary maladministration and attempts to remove a trustee. The court analyzed whether each type of action fell within the clause’s scope, reinforcing the principle that courts read these clauses narrowly.

Landmark Court Cases

Burch v. George (1994) — California Supreme Court

This case involved Frank Burch, who created a will and an inter vivos trust. His fifth wife, Marlene, was a beneficiary. After Frank’s death, Marlene sought to claim community property rights and federal ERISA benefits from assets in the trust. The California Supreme Court held that Marlene’s proposed actions would constitute a contest under the no-contest clause. The court enforced the clause, concluding that it was consistent with California law and was not preempted by federal ERISA law.

Burch v. George became a turning point in California and led to years of complex litigation over the scope of no-contest clauses. It was one of the main reasons the California legislature eventually reformed its no-contest clause statutes in 2010, narrowing enforcement to the three specific scenarios now codified in Probate Code § 21311.

Key v. Tyler (2019) — California Court of Appeals

Two sisters were beneficiaries of a revocable trust. The defendant sister, Tyler, was also the trustee. After their father’s death, Tyler caused their mother to amend the trust, effectively disinheriting Key. Key challenged the amendment and won — the court found Tyler had exerted undue influence. Key then sought to enforce the no-contest clause against Tyler.

The court agreed. It found that Tyler’s defense of the invalid amendment amounted to a “direct contest” of the original trust. The court held that responsive pleadings — not just initiating lawsuits — can trigger a no-contest clause. This expanded the scope of what counts as a “contest” in California.

Duncan v. Rawls (2018) — Georgia Court of Appeals

Fourteen beneficiaries of a trust challenged its validity, claiming the trustees exerted undue influence over the elderly settlor. The trust contained an in terrorem clause. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the clause was enforceable and barred the undue influence claim — even though the beneficiaries argued they acted in good faith and with probable cause. The court stated that creating exceptions to in terrorem clauses was a legislative function, not a judicial one.

Slosberg v. Giller (2022) — Georgia Supreme Court

The Georgia Supreme Court addressed whether a no-contest clause could block a challenge alleging that the clause itself was the product of undue influence. The court ruled it could not. If the no-contest clause was inserted into the document through coercion or manipulation, the clause cannot be used to prevent the very challenge that would expose the wrongdoing. This decision created a significant carve-out in Georgia law.

Matter of Estate of McLoughlin (2024) — Massachusetts Appeals Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court reaffirmed that no-contest clauses are enforceable when written in clear, unmistakable language. The court emphasized that vague or overly broad clauses may be trimmed down or ignored. Clarity and precision in drafting are essential for enforcement.

Mistakes to Avoid

Including a no-contest clause without leaving a meaningful inheritance to the potential challenger. A clause is worthless if the person you are trying to deter has nothing to lose. Always leave a bequest large enough to create a real financial risk for a would-be challenger.

Using vague or overly broad language. Courts in every state interpret no-contest clauses narrowly. If the language does not clearly describe what actions trigger the forfeiture, the clause may not be enforced. Courts look for precise expressions of intent. Generic “directly or indirectly” language is often given little weight.

Assuming the clause prevents all lawsuits. A no-contest clause does not stop anyone from filing a lawsuit. It only affects the consequences of losing that lawsuit. Beneficiaries can still sue, and in probable cause states, they can do so without any risk if their claims are legitimate.

Failing to account for state-specific rules. A will drafted in one state may not be enforced the same way if you move to another state. If you relocate from New York to Florida, for example, your no-contest clause becomes unenforceable. Estate plans should be reviewed whenever you change your state of residence.

Confusing a challenge to the document with a challenge to the fiduciary. A no-contest clause applies to challenges against the validity of the will or trust itself. It does not apply to lawsuits against an executor or trustee for mismanaging the estate. Beneficiaries can always hold fiduciaries accountable without triggering the clause.

Relying on the clause as your only strategy. A no-contest clause is one tool, not a complete solution. It should be combined with other strategies: clear communication with your family about your wishes, a self-proving affidavit, proper witnesses, evidence of mental capacity at the time of signing, and mediation clauses.

Not updating the clause after major life events. Marriage, divorce, the birth of a child, or a move to a new state can all change whether and how a no-contest clause works. Review your estate plan after every major life event.

Drafting a clause that punishes descendants of the challenger. Some no-contest clauses provide that if a beneficiary contests the will, all of their descendants are also disinherited. This can have devastating unintended consequences. Grandchildren who had no involvement in the lawsuit may lose their inheritance because of their parent’s decision. Consider whether this level of penalty aligns with your actual wishes.

Pros and Cons

Pros

• Honors your right to distribute your property how you choose, reinforcing testamentary freedom — the principle that individuals should control what happens to their assets after death
• Discourages frivolous or emotionally-driven challenges by creating a real financial penalty for unsuccessful lawsuits
• Reduces the likelihood of drawn-out, expensive litigation that depletes estate assets — legal fees in will contests can consume tens of thousands of dollars
• Protects against meritless lawsuits designed to force a settlement by dissatisfied beneficiaries hoping for a payout
• Promotes family harmony by giving beneficiaries a strong reason to accept the terms of the will rather than fight over them
• Preserves the estate for the intended beneficiaries rather than letting legal fees consume it

Cons

• Creates a false sense of security — the clause might not be enforced depending on your state’s law
• Has no power over someone who was completely disinherited and has nothing to lose
• May discourage legitimate challenges to a will that was created through fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity
• Can be undermined by the probable cause exception, which allows many challenges to proceed anyway
• May cause resentment among beneficiaries who feel threatened even when they have no intention of contesting
• Completely unenforceable in Florida and potentially problematic in states with unsettled case law like Vermont

Do’s and Don’ts

Do’s

• Do work with an experienced estate planning attorney who knows the specific laws in your state — enforcement rules vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
• Do leave a meaningful bequest to any person you expect might contest your will, so the clause has actual deterrent power
• Do use clear, specific language that precisely describes what actions trigger forfeiture — vague language gets struck down by courts
• Do combine the no-contest clause with other protective measures like a self-proving affidavit, a letter of intent, proper witness documentation, and evidence of mental capacity at the time of signing
• Do review and update your estate plan whenever you move to a new state, get married, divorced, or experience a significant change in family dynamics
• Do consider including a mediation clause alongside the no-contest clause to encourage disputes to be resolved privately before they reach a courtroom

Don’ts

• Don’t assume a no-contest clause prevents lawsuits — it only changes the consequences of an unsuccessful challenge
• Don’t completely disinherit someone and rely on the clause to protect against their challenge — they have nothing to lose by fighting
• Don’t use a no-contest clause to shield an executor or trustee from accountability for mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty — courts will not enforce the clause in that context
• Don’t copy a generic no-contest clause from the internet — every state has different rules, and the language must be tailored to your jurisdiction
• Don’t skip the conversation with your family about your estate plan — open communication reduces surprises and minimizes the desire to contest

FAQs

Are no-contest clauses legal in every state?
No. Florida is the only state where no-contest clauses are completely unenforceable under Florida Statute § 732.517. Every other state permits them to some degree, with varying levels of exceptions and enforcement standards.

Can I still contest a will if it has a no-contest clause?
Yes. A no-contest clause does not prevent anyone from filing a lawsuit. It only means you risk losing your inheritance if your challenge fails. In probable cause states, a legitimate challenge will not trigger the clause.

Does a no-contest clause apply to trusts?
Yes. No-contest clauses can be included in both wills and trusts. In most states, the same enforcement rules apply to both. Florida prohibits them in both wills and trusts under separate statutes.

Will a no-contest clause stop a disinherited person from suing?
No. Someone who receives nothing under the will has no financial incentive to follow the clause. They have nothing to lose by contesting, so the clause has no deterrent effect on them.

Can I challenge a trustee’s actions without triggering the clause?
Yes. In almost every state, challenges to fiduciary conduct — such as theft, mismanagement, or failure to account — are separate from challenges to the validity of the document. A no-contest clause typically does not apply to fiduciary misconduct claims.

Does probable cause protect me if I contest and lose?
Yes, in states that follow the probable cause standard. If you had a reasonable basis for your challenge at the time you filed, the no-contest clause will not be enforced against you — even if you ultimately lose the case.

Do I need a lawyer to include a no-contest clause?
Yes. The enforceability of a no-contest clause depends on precise language, state-specific rules, and the overall structure of your estate plan. A poorly drafted clause can be struck down or create unintended consequences.

Can a no-contest clause be challenged as the product of undue influence?
Yes. The Georgia Supreme Court held in Slosberg v. Giller (2022) that a no-contest clause cannot bar a challenge alleging the clause itself was inserted through coercion or manipulation.

What happens to a forfeited inheritance?
It depends on the will. Most no-contest clauses redirect forfeited shares to the remaining beneficiaries or to a contingent beneficiary named in the document. If the will does not specify, state intestacy law determines where the assets go.

Does moving to a new state affect my no-contest clause?
Yes. If you move from a state that enforces no-contest clauses to one that does not (like Florida), your clause becomes unenforceable. You should review your estate plan with a local attorney after any interstate move to make sure your documents align with the new state’s laws.