Few things stir up family conflict like the reading of a will. To discourage fights, some people include what’s known as an in terrorem clause (also known as a “no contest clause”), Latin for “in fear” or “to frighten.”

The idea is simple: if a beneficiary contests the will in court, they risk losing their inheritance entirely.

Picture this: You have three children and plan to divide your estate equally. But you know there’s rivalry between them and litigation is a real possibility. To head that off, you add a provision saying that if anyone contests the will, their share is revoked.

At first glance, it seems like a neat solution to prevent courtroom battles. But the reality is more complicated, because these clauses are controversial and treated differently depending on where you live.

In Connecticut, an in terrorem clause is enforceable only if it is certain, lawful, and not opposed to public policy.

Importantly, Connecticut adds a safeguard: if someone contests in good faith and with probable cause, they do not lose their inheritance. This means that when there is evidence of undue influence, fraud, or a lack of capacity, heirs can still bring their concerns to court without automatically being punished. Connecticut follows the approach of the Uniform Probate Code, which prioritizes exposing wrongful wills over deterring litigation.

Massachusetts takes a stricter view. Under M.G.L. c. 190B, § 2-517, in terrorem clauses are considered valid and enforceable, and there is no carve-out for contests brought in good faith.

Massachusetts courts have said there is no public policy that requires striking down such provisions, even if the beneficiary had good reason to object. Instead, the testator’s intent is paramount. The courts emphasize that contesting a will subject to such a clause is a matter of free choice: an heir can either take the gift under the will or challenge the will and risk forfeiting everything. If the challenge succeeds, the clause falls with the rest of the will. If the challenge fails, the heir loses their gift.

Massachusetts case law shows both the rigidity and the limits of these clauses. In Rudd v. Searles, the court upheld a clause even though the beneficiary argued there were valid grounds for contest. In Maguire v. Bliss, a procedural motion to dismiss probate in the wrong county was not treated as a contest, so the clause wasn’t triggered. In Old Colony Trust Co. v. Wolfman, however, a guardian ad litem acting on behalf of a minor filed an objection, which was treated as a contest and caused the minor to lose her inheritance. Other cases, like Mazzola v. Myers, Savage v. Oliszczak, and more recent rulings, show that Massachusetts courts interpret these provisions narrowly: asking a court to interpret a will, or serving as a witness in someone else’s contest, is not enough to cause forfeiture. At the same time, Massachusetts courts have extended the enforcement of in terrorem clauses beyond wills to trusts as well, provided the triggering actions fall within the clause’s language.

The policy debate underlying these cases is longstanding. On one hand, in terrorem clauses can prevent bitter litigation, preserve family privacy, and protect the testator’s reputation. On the other hand, they can deter heirs from raising legitimate claims of coercion, incapacity, or fraud. Connecticut resolves this tension by protecting good faith contests, while Massachusetts leaves the risk squarely on the shoulders of the heir. It is an all-or-nothing gamble: either accept what the will gives you, or risk losing it all by contesting.

Whether you should include an in terrorem clause in your estate plan depends on your goals and your family dynamics. If you expect serious disputes, the clause can be a strong deterrent. But it can also complicate matters if there are valid reasons for an heir to challenge the will. What’s clear is that Massachusetts enforces them strictly, Connecticut allows more room for good faith challenges, and both states require careful drafting to ensure the clause works as intended.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US