Mother’s will included a no contest clause requiring forfeiture by any beneficiary who contests the validity of the will or who attempts to prevent “any provision thereof from being carried out” and also contained a condition precedent to “every benefit conferred herein” requiring all beneficiaries to “accept and agree” to all the terms and provisions of the will. Daughter brought suit against her brothers as trustees of her testamentary trust and of a trust under their father’s will and sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the trustees from taking certain action with respect to the trusts and specific trust property and asked for the appointment of a receiver. The trial court granted the trustees’ summary judgment motion for forfeiture of daughter’s interests in the trust for violation of the no contest clause and of the condition precedent.
In Ard v. Hudson, an intermediate Texas appellate court reversed, stating that no contest clauses are to be strictly construed, that they cannot be violated by a beneficiary’s exercise of “the inherent right” to challenge a fiduciary, and that the beneficiary may seek injunctive and other relief such as seeking the appointment of a receiver without violating a no contest clause.
Special thanks to William LaPiana (Professor of Law, New York Law School) for bringing this case to my attention.
