Families are often shocked to learn that challenging a trust in Missouri can come with a very serious consequence: complete forfeiture of an inheritance. A recent decision from the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District highlights just how strictly Missouri courts may enforce “no-contest” clauses in trusts—even when a beneficiary claims undue influence or lack of capacity.

In In the Interest of Suzanne M. Kolb, Deceased, the court reaffirmed Missouri's long-standing approach to trust contests and no-contest provisions, emphasizing that beneficiaries who challenge a trust may risk losing everything left to them under the document.

For Missouri families, trustees, and beneficiaries, the case is an important reminder that trust litigation should never be filed casually or without careful legal review.

What Is a No-Contest Clause in a Missouri Trust?

A no-contest clause—sometimes called an “in terrorem” clause—is a provision stating that if a beneficiary challenges the validity of a trust or will, that beneficiary forfeits his or her inheritance.

These clauses are common in Missouri estate planning, particularly in:

• revocable living trusts;
• blended family estate plans;
• high-conflict family situations; and
• estates involving substantial assets or unequal distributions.

The purpose is straightforward: discourage litigation and preserve the settlor's intended estate plan.

In the Kolb case, the trust language provided that any beneficiary who sought to contest the validity of the trust would “forfeit all” rights under the trust and would be treated as though the beneficiary had predeceased the settlor.

The trust further stated that anyone who successfully established a different interest in the trust would receive only one dollar in satisfaction of that interest.

The Facts of the Kolb Trust Dispute

The case involved a revocable trust created by Suzanne Kolb, who was survived by four adult children. Over time, she executed multiple amendments to the trust.

The final amendment significantly changed how trust assets would be distributed:

• one daughter lost an interest in the family home; and
• the remaining assets were redistributed among the children differently than before.

One of the daughters wanted to challenge the validity of the Fourth Amendment based on:

• alleged lack of testamentary capacity; and
• alleged undue influence.

Before filing the actual trust contest, however, she sought a “safe harbor” ruling under Missouri law asking the court to determine whether her proposed lawsuit would trigger the no-contest clause.

The trial court ruled that filing the proposed trust contest would indeed trigger forfeiture, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.

Missouri Courts Strictly Enforce No-Contest Clauses

The appellate court emphasized an important principle of Missouri law: a person generally has the right to dispose of property however they choose, including attaching conditions to inheritances.

The court explained that Missouri law focuses heavily on the settlor's intent when interpreting trusts. Courts attempt to read the trust as a whole and avoid interpretations that create inconsistencies or absurd results.

Here, the court concluded the settlor clearly intended to penalize beneficiaries who challenged the trust. According to the court, the trust language plainly required forfeiture if a beneficiary filed a prohibited contest.

The beneficiary argued that the trust language created internal contradictions and effectively punished all beneficiaries if one person challenged the trust. The court rejected that interpretation, calling it inconsistent with the settlor's obvious intent to benefit her children.

Ultimately, the court held the no-contest clause was enforceable.

Can You Challenge Only a Trust Amendment?

One argument raised in the case was that the beneficiary was not trying to destroy the entire trust—only challenge the final amendment.

The beneficiary argued that contesting a single amendment should not count as contesting the trust itself.

The court rejected that argument as unsupported under Missouri law.

This portion of the opinion is particularly important because many trust disputes involve later amendments signed near the end of life. Beneficiaries often believe they can surgically challenge only the “bad amendment” without triggering forfeiture language.

The Kolb opinion demonstrates that this assumption can be dangerous.

Missouri Does Not Recognize a “Good Faith” Exception

Perhaps the most important part of the decision is the court's discussion of “good faith” trust contests.

Some states recognize an exception allowing beneficiaries to challenge a trust without forfeiture if they act:

• in good faith; and
• with probable cause.

Missouri does not.

The beneficiary in Kolb argued the court should adopt such an exception because it promotes fairness and helps uncover wrongdoing.

The court rejected the argument and relied on longstanding Missouri Supreme Court precedent holding that no-contest clauses are enforceable even where the contestant acts in good faith and has probable cause.

That is a critical point for Missouri beneficiaries:
filing a trust contest can place an inheritance at risk even if the beneficiary sincerely believes the challenge is justified.

Why This Matters in Missouri Trust Litigation

The Kolb case illustrates why beneficiaries should seek legal advice before taking action involving:

• trust amendments;
• claims of undue influence;
• elder financial abuse allegations;
• disputes involving caregivers or family members;
• capacity challenges; or
• trustee misconduct claims.

In some situations, a beneficiary may have legitimate concerns but still face enormous financial risk if the trust contains a carefully drafted no-contest provision.

Likewise, trustees administering Missouri trusts should understand that these provisions can substantially affect:

• litigation strategy;
• settlement negotiations;
• beneficiary communications; and
• administration decisions.

Missouri “Safe Harbor” Proceedings

One important tool discussed in the opinion is Missouri's “safe harbor” statute.

Under Section 456.4-420.2 RSMo., beneficiaries may ask a court in advance whether a proposed action would violate a no-contest clause.

These proceedings can provide critical guidance before a beneficiary commits to litigation that could jeopardize a substantial inheritance.

However, as the Kolb case demonstrates, courts may still conclude that the proposed claims trigger forfeiture.

Speak With a Missouri Trust Litigation Attorney Before Filing a Contest

Trust contests often involve emotionally charged disputes between siblings, caregivers, surviving spouses, and trustees. But before filing suit, beneficiaries should fully understand the legal and financial consequences under Missouri law.

A carefully drafted no-contest clause may be enforceable even where:

• the beneficiary believes the trust amendment was unfair;
• there are allegations of undue influence;
• there are questions about capacity; or
• the challenge is brought in good faith.

The recent Kolb decision serves as another reminder that Missouri courts continue to enforce these provisions strictly.

At Beal & Whitener LLP, we handle Missouri trust and estate disputes involving:

• trust contests;
• undue influence claims;
• fiduciary litigation;
• trustee disputes;
• probate litigation; and
• contested estate administration.

If you are considering challenging a trust—or defending one—it is important to evaluate the trust language and litigation risks before proceeding.