No-contest clause
A clause disinheriting anybody who challenges the will. Whether it works depends on the state.
What it means
A no-contest clause — also called an in terrorem clause, meaning "in fear" — says that a beneficiary who challenges the will forfeits whatever it left them. Its purpose is deterrence: somebody left a meaningful share has to weigh losing it against the chance of winning more.
Its force varies enormously. Some states will not enforce such a clause at all. Many enforce it but not where the challenge was brought with probable cause, which is the position the Uniform Probate Code takes. A few enforce it broadly.
The clause is also only as strong as the gift behind it. A person left nothing, or left a token amount, has nothing to forfeit, and the clause does not deter them at all — which is why a will that disinherits somebody entirely and relies on a no-contest clause is relying on nothing.
What counts as a contest is a separate question. Asking the court to construe an ambiguous term, or to remove an executor, is usually not a contest. Alleging the will is invalid is.
Why it matters
A beneficiary deciding whether to challenge is deciding under a rule that differs by state, and getting it wrong costs them the gift.
A person making a will may believe the clause is stronger than their state will allow, and rely on it instead of the things that actually reduce a challenge — a contemporaneous capacity assessment, independent witnesses, an explanation left separately.
When you are likely to meet it
- When reading a will that contains a clause forfeiting a share on challenge.
- When deciding whether to raise a question about a will's validity.
- When a family member has been left a deliberately small share rather than nothing.
How this varies by state
Whether a no-contest clause is enforceable at all, and whether probable cause defeats it, is entirely a matter of state law. It is one of the widest state-to-state divergences in probate.