No-Contest Clauses in Minnesota Wills and Trusts

What does a no-contest clause do in a Minnesota will or trust?

A no-contest clause takes away a beneficiary’s gift if the beneficiary does what the clause describes, such as challenging the will or trust in court. The clause’s words set the trigger and also say who receives the forfeited share. Lawyers also call it an in terrorem clause.

The clauses in three Minnesota appellate decisions show the range of wording:

1. A will that sent the forfeited gift to a church. The will in In re Estate of Hartz, 77 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. 1956) reached any legatee who should “directly or indirectly contest the validity of this Will” in any manner. That person’s gifts “shall be void and of no effect” and would pass to a named Catholic church.
2. A trust that spread the forfeited share among the others. The trust in In re B.C. Fox Trust, No. A21-0770 (Minn. App. Apr. 11, 2022) reached any beneficiary who “directly or indirectly contests the validity of this trust or the distributions thereof in any manner.” The lost gift “will ratably augment the shares of the other beneficiaries entitled to distributive shares of the trust estate.”
3. A trust that treated the beneficiary as already dead. The trust in In re Gus A. Chafoulias Revocable Trust, No. A25-0665 (Minn. App. Feb. 23, 2026) reached a beneficiary who “seeks to obtain adjudication in any court proceeding that a Document or any of its provisions is void.” That beneficiary’s interest was decided “as if the beneficiary predeceased me without leaving any surviving descendants,” so the share did not pass through the beneficiary to the beneficiary’s children.

A no-contest clause does not prevent anyone from filing in court. It puts the filing beneficiary’s gift at risk if the court later decides the clause applies. The size of that risk depends on how much the document gives the beneficiary, which is why a person left little by a will or trust has less to lose by challenging it.

How does Minnesota’s probable-cause rule protect someone who challenges a will?

A Minnesota will’s no-contest clause cannot be enforced against a person who had probable cause to bring the proceeding, even if that person loses. Minn. Stat. § 524.2-517 provides: “A provision in a will purporting to penalize an interested person for contesting the will or instituting other proceedings relating to the estate is unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings.”

Three parts of that sentence matter to a beneficiary:

1. It reaches more than a will contest. The protection covers “contesting the will” and also “instituting other proceedings relating to the estate.”
2. It protects an interested person. Under Minn. Stat. § 524.1-201, clause (34), an interested person “includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against the estate of a decedent” that the proceeding may affect.
3. It does not define probable cause. The statute names probable cause as its only condition and gives no further test.

The rule started with the courts. In Hartz, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the majority rule that a forfeiture clause is “valid and enforceable, subject to the exception that it will not be held effective as to a bequest for a beneficiary who has unsuccessfully contested the will if it appears that the contest was instituted by such beneficiary in good faith and with probable cause to believe that the will was invalid.” The contestants were cousins who challenged a will leaving most of the estate to the decedent’s housekeeper, on grounds of undue influence and lack of capacity. They lost. The district court then found the contest was “begun and prosecuted in good faith and with probable cause” and that “it was not frivolous, vexatious nor actuated by malice.” The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment that each cousin was entitled to the $1,000 bequest the will gave them.

The 1956 decision paired good faith with probable cause, and the 1994 statute names probable cause alone. For a will today, the statute’s words are the starting point. For the grounds a will contest can rest on and the probate timing, see contesting a will for undue influence.

Why does a Minnesota trust’s no-contest clause follow different rules?

Minnesota’s trust code, chapter 501C, has no section on no-contest clauses, so the clause in a trust created outside a will is applied according to its own terms. In 2026 the Court of Appeals declined to carry the wills probable-cause rule over to trusts. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed in May 2026 to review that decision.

The starting point is Minn. Stat. § 501C.0105, paragraph (b): “The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this chapter except” for a list of rules the trust cannot change. In B.C. Fox Trust, the parties agreed that chapter 501C “does not contain any provision governing a no-contest clause in a trust agreement,” and the court held that the dispute “is governed solely by the terms of the B.C. Trust agreement.”

In Chafoulias, a beneficiary argued that two trust-code sections bring the wills rule into trusts. The court rejected both:

1. Rules of construction. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0112 provides: “The rules of construction that apply in this state to the interpretation of and disposition of property by will also apply as appropriate to the interpretation of the terms of a trust and the disposition of the trust property.” The court held that the probable-cause exception is not one of those rules. It reasoned that the exception “identifies scenarios where otherwise-valid no-contest clauses will not be given effect” and so “does not qualify as a canon of construction for wills.” It also noted that the legislature placed § 524.2-517 in the probate code’s “Wills” part, not in its parts on rules of construction.
2. Equity. Minn. Stat. § 501C.0106 provides: “The common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement this chapter, except to the extent modified by this chapter or another law of this state.” The court acknowledged that the beneficiary presented “strong arguments grounded in good authority” for a trust exception, but held that “the decision to extend the trust code in this way is for the legislature or supreme court.”

Both B.C. Fox Trust and Chafoulias are nonprecedential. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), “Nonprecedential opinions and order opinions are not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel, but nonprecedential opinions may be cited as persuasive authority.” My research found no published Minnesota appellate decision that applies a probable-cause exception to a trust’s no-contest clause. Until the Supreme Court decides Chafoulias, I suggest treating a trust’s clause as enforceable as written, because that is how the most recent appellate decision applied it. For the rights a trust beneficiary keeps regardless, see the rights of beneficiaries in a Minnesota trust.

What counts as a contest under a no-contest clause?

What counts as a contest is whatever the clause’s words describe, read with the rest of the document. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has called a no-contest clause a forfeiture provision, so a narrow clause reaches less than a broad one. Three decisions show how far the words can reach.

An informal instruction. In In re Estate of Vittorio, 546 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. App. 1996), a father’s will referred to instructions he had given his son about property held outside the will. According to the son, one instruction let him keep all the real property if his sisters “fought him or were too demanding” about the estate. The Court of Appeals recognized that the instruction targeted “less formal action than that described in the statute” and still held that it “does constitute a forfeiture clause” under that statute. It concluded that “form should not be elevated over substance” and held the instruction unenforceable under former section 524.3-905, the predecessor of § 524.2-517 with nearly identical wording.

An indirect contest. In B.C. Fox Trust, the court began from the rule that forfeiture provisions are “strictly construed and not extended beyond the true intent of the parties.” It still held that a beneficiary, who was also the sole trustee, indirectly contested the trust’s distributions without ever suing over that trust. He had his incapacitated brother sign an amendment to the brother’s own trust that would have redirected to himself the assets their father’s trust was to distribute to the brother’s trust. The court also reasoned that he “contested the same distribution of the B.C. Trust when he denied the adverse claims” of his other brother and a charitable foundation and “defended against the Gerald Foundation’s claims in the California case.” The court declined to limit “indirectly” to a person who prompts or helps someone else’s contest.

A request to rule on the clause itself. In Chafoulias, the beneficiary’s amended petition asked the court to decide the “validity and enforceability of the no-contest provision” in the trust. The Court of Appeals held that “a beneficiary who initiates a court proceeding contesting the validity or enforceability of a trust provision trips the no-contest clause” under that wording. It recognized that Minnesota courts disfavor forfeitures, but held that the “ultimate objective to enforce grantor intent trumps this preference” where the trust shows that intent. The court read the clause alongside the rest of the trust. That trust directed administration with “freedom from judicial intervention” and sent disputes to mediation, arbitration, and a trust advisor. The beneficiary had alleged that her brother, the trustee, “had taken almost $17 million in loans from the trust without making any repayments.”

When does a request for information or a court petition trigger a trust’s no-contest clause?

Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0813, the trustee of an irrevocable trust must, unless unreasonable under the circumstances, promptly respond to a beneficiary’s request for information related to the trust’s administration. Whether a written request or a petition for an accounting, removal, or instructions triggers the clause depends on the clause’s words and on the rest of the trust.

Minn. Stat. § 501C.0813, paragraph (a), provides: “Unless unreasonable under the circumstances, a trustee shall promptly respond to a beneficiary’s request for information related to the administration of an irrevocable trust.” Paragraph (b) adds a variation the trust instrument can make: “A settlor may provide, by an express provision in the trust instrument, that paragraph (a) shall not apply to the administration of a trust during any period when the trustee is required by the terms of the trust to keep the settlor or another person, including one or more beneficiaries of the trust or a representative of a beneficiary, reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and of the material facts necessary to protect the beneficiaries’ interests.”

Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0105, paragraph (a), “Except as otherwise provided in the terms of a trust, this chapter governs the duties and powers of a trustee.” I suggest reading the clause’s words before making a request, and then making it in writing, because the response or the silence becomes the record. For what a trustee should be keeping and producing, see what a trustee must report and keep.

Court filings are listed in Minn. Stat. § 501C.0202. They include a petition “to require a trustee to account,” one “to remove a trustee as provided in section 501C.0706,” and one “to instruct the trustee regarding any matter involving the trust’s administration or the discharge of the trustee’s duties, including a request for instructions and an action to declare rights.” Whether a clause reaches any of them depends on its words and on what the rest of the trust says.

Chafoulias shows how. That trust let the brother remove trustees but barred his sister from removing him. Her amended petition also asked whether a petition to remove him would trigger the clause. The Court of Appeals read that request as “an attempt to circumvent the trust provisions that establish Andrew as trustee and bar her from removing him,” and held it triggered the clause too. A removal petition can therefore collide with a trust’s own removal terms, which is a reason to read both before filing. For the removal grounds and process, see removing a trustee in Minnesota.

Wills work differently. Because Minn. Stat. § 524.2-517 covers “instituting other proceedings relating to the estate,” a will’s penalty clause is unenforceable against a proceeding over the estate’s administration if probable cause exists for it. In Vittorio, an instruction aimed at siblings who “fought him or were too demanding” was held unenforceable under the earlier version of that statute.

How can a beneficiary weigh the risk before filing a challenge?

The risk is easiest to judge by comparing what the clause puts at risk with what the challenge could recover, after reading the clause’s trigger and gift-over words. For a will, the question is whether the facts show probable cause. For a trust, it is whether the planned filing falls inside the clause’s words at all.

These steps put the decision on facts:

1. The full document and the clause. The verbs (“contest,” “seek to void”), the reach (“directly or indirectly,” “in any manner”), and the gift-over all change the answer. If you do not have a copy of a trust or its amendments, see challenging a trust amendment that cut you out.
2. The two outcomes in dollars. One number is what the document gives you now. The other is what you would receive if the challenge succeeded. A large gift under the document raises the cost of being wrong.
3. The probable-cause record for a will. In Hartz, good faith and probable cause were decided after the will contest ended, at the stage where the estate’s final account and distribution were before the court. The Supreme Court noted that “In none of the proceedings relative to the will contest were issues as to the good faith of respondents in bringing such contest or as to their probable cause to believe the will invalid presented or determined.” The statute makes the clause unenforceable “if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings.”
4. A settlement in place of a contest. For a will, under Minn. Stat. § 524.3-912, “competent successors may agree among themselves to alter the interests, shares, or amounts to which they are entitled under the will of the decedent” in a written contract signed by all affected, subject to creditors and taxes. For a trust, Minn. Stat. § 501C.0111 permits a binding nonjudicial settlement agreement among “persons whose consent would be required in order to achieve a binding settlement were the settlement to be approved by the court.” Its subjects include “the approval of a trustee’s report or accounting.” Under paragraph (c), “A nonjudicial settlement agreement is valid only to the extent it does not violate a material purpose of the trust and includes terms and conditions that could be properly approved by the court under this chapter or other applicable law.”
5. The separate timing rules. A contest of a trust that was revocable at the settlor’s death has its own deadline in Minn. Stat. § 501C.0605, which begins: “A person may commence a judicial proceeding to contest the validity of a trust that was revocable immediately prior to the settlor’s death within the earlier of” two events. Check the current text of the statute for the periods themselves.

One qualifier applies while a parent is still living. Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0604, “While a trust is revocable, rights of the beneficiaries are subject to the control of, and the duties of the trustee are owed exclusively to, the settlor.” During that time, the parent controls the trust. Some trusts, like the one in Chafoulias, also ask that disputes go to mediation or arbitration first.

How does a personal representative or trustee enforce a no-contest clause?

A personal representative or trustee enforces the clause by asking the court, in the proceeding that decides who receives what, to apply it to the beneficiary who triggered it. The beneficiary can then answer with the clause’s limits: probable cause for a will, or the clause’s own words for a trust.

In probate. In Hartz, the executor, the residuary beneficiary, and the church named as alternate beneficiary relied on the clause after the will contest ended. The probate court order, “made on petition for allowance of final account and for a decree of distribution,” nullified the cousins’ bequests. The district court reversed that order after finding good faith and probable cause, and the Supreme Court affirmed. A personal representative’s litigation costs are governed by Minn. Stat. § 524.3-720: one “who defends or prosecutes any proceeding in good faith, whether successful or not,” is entitled to necessary expenses and reasonable attorney fees from the estate, and so is “any interested person who successfully opposes the allowance of a will.” If the concern is the personal representative’s own conduct, see misconduct by a personal representative.

In a trust proceeding. In Chafoulias, the trustee moved for judgment on the pleadings in the beneficiary’s own proceeding. The district court granted the motion and concluded that she “is disinherited and no longer a trust beneficiary.” In B.C. Fox Trust, another beneficiary asked the court to void the distributions to his brother, and the Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to order a remedy consistent with the clause’s language. A trustee unsure whether a beneficiary’s conduct triggered the clause may petition under Minn. Stat. § 501C.0202 for “a request for instructions and an action to declare rights.”

Two limits stay in place throughout. Under § 501C.0105, paragraph (b)(2), the trust’s terms cannot displace “the duty of a trustee to act in good faith and in accordance with the terms and purposes of the trust and the interests of the beneficiaries.” Under paragraph (b)(11), they also cannot displace “the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.”

Fees are the court’s call. Under Minn. Stat. § 501C.1004, “In a judicial proceeding involving the administration of a trust, the court, as justice and equity may require, may award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to any party from the trust that is the subject of the judicial proceeding.”

I suggest a fiduciary weigh the cost of enforcing against the size of the estate or trust, because the fees come out of the same assets the beneficiaries share.

Next Steps With a Minnesota No-Contest Clause

For a will, a no-contest clause is unenforceable against a beneficiary who had probable cause, and that protection reaches other estate proceedings as well as contests. For a trust created outside a will, the clause’s words control. The Court of Appeals has applied a trust clause to a petition that asked the court to rule on the clause’s validity, and the Minnesota Supreme Court is reviewing that decision. In either case, the clause’s trigger words, the gift at stake, and, for a will, the facts on probable cause decide the risk.

If you are a beneficiary, personal representative, or trustee dealing with a no-contest clause in a Minnesota will or trust, email [email protected] with a brief description. I start with an intake and conflict check before you send confidential documents. I can then analyze the clause and tell you whether a planned filing falls within it and, for a will, what the facts show on probable cause. More on how I handle these cases is on my trust and estate litigation page.