In terrorem—often called “no contest”—clauses are intended to discourage litigation by penalizing beneficiaries who challenge a will or trust, usually by cutting them out entirely. In Massachusetts, however, courts interpret these clauses narrowly, and a recent Appeals Court decision reinforces just how limited their reach can be.
That decision, David Walton v. Derek Walton (Mass. App. Ct., Dec. 18, 2025), involved a dispute between two brothers over their late mother’s estate. Their mother left her assets equally to her sons and included a no-contest clause barring any challenge to the will or any attempt to change the character of estate property.
The problem arose over the family home. One brother filed a partition action seeking to force a sale. In response, the other brother asked the court to declare that he had the right to live in the home for the rest of his life. The probate court concluded that this request triggered the no-contest clause and ruled that the brother had forfeited his interest in the property.
The Appeals Court disagreed.
The court held that seeking clarification of one’s rights under a will—especially in response to litigation—is not the same as contesting the will itself. Because the brother was not challenging the validity of the will or attempting to alter ownership, the no-contest clause did not apply. The court also found that the will’s language governing use, occupancy, and sale of the home was ambiguous, and it sent the case back to the probate court for a trial to determine the mother’s intent.
The Bigger Lesson: Use the Right Planning Tool
This case offers two important takeaways. First, no-contest clauses are not enforced expansively in Massachusetts. They will not bar every trip to court, particularly when a beneficiary is simply asking a judge to interpret unclear language.
Second—and more importantly—wills are a poor vehicle for complex property arrangements. When a client wants to grant something short of outright ownership, such as a right to live in a home, allocate expenses, or control how and when a property may be sold, a trust is almost always the better option.
Clear drafting is essential, but so is choosing the right estate planning instrument. A well-structured trust can prevent the kind of ambiguity—and litigation—that plagued the Walton family, and it can better ensure that a client’s intent is carried out as planned.
If you have questions about no-contest clauses, estate planning, or how to protect your family’s assets, don’t hesitate to call us at 617-431-2669. Our team at Lannik Law, LLC can help clarify your rights and guide you through the process."