If you are a beneficiary of a family trust and something about how it is being handled feels wrong, your first instinct may be to go to court. Before you do, you need to know whether the trust contains ano-contest clause. A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision shows these clauses can reach much further than many families expect. They can even reach disputes that don't appear to be about the trust at all.

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

A no-contest clause (sometimes called a forfeiture clause) is a provision in a trust or will. It says that a beneficiary who challenges the document loses their inheritance. The person who created the trust, called the grantor, uses it to discourage family litigation and protect their estate plan.

Missouri courts construe these clauses strictly, and the law generally disfavors forfeitures. Even so, Missouri has long held no-contest clauses valid and enforceable. The key question is always what conduct the grantor clearly intended to trigger a forfeiture. As the Missouri Supreme Court has explained, the answer depends on the facts of the case and the exact language of the clause.

The Washburn Trust Case: What Happened

In In re Jack L. Washburn Trust (Mo. App. S.D., August 5, 2026), Jack Washburn created a trust in 2015. His plan left his real estate to three named beneficiaries as tenants in common. The plan came with detailed restrictions, including limits on transfers, rights of first refusal, and an appraisal process.

In June 2023, Mr. Washburn amended the trust. The new language made the real estate distribution subject to "any contracts for the sale of real estate entered into by the Trustee." About eleven weeks later, acting as trustee, he signed a contract to sell the real estate for $573,735. The sale was set to close within 90 days after his death. He died in August 2024.

The successor trustee asked the court to confirm he could close the sale. Two beneficiaries wanted to fight it. They planned to argue that Mr. Washburn lacked the mental capacity to sign the sale contract and may have been unduly influenced.

Wisely, they asked first. Missouri law, § 456.4-420 RSMo, lets an interested person get an advance ruling on whether a proposed claim would trigger the no-contest clause. The trial court ruled that their proposed answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaim would all violate the clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Why Challenging the Sale Contract Counted as Challenging the Trust

The beneficiaries argued they were attacking only the sale contract, a separate document, and not the trust. The court rejected that argument for three reasons.

1. The clause was written broadly

The clause opened with Mr. Washburn's desire that the trust be administered "without litigation or dispute of any kind." It applied to anyone who "directly or indirectly" attempted to impair the trust "on any ground whatsoever." The court found this language clear, unambiguous, and expansive. It declined to adopt a strained, technical reading that would let beneficiaries avoid it.

2. The capacity claim could not be separated from the trust amendment

The beneficiaries alleged "years of declining mental health." The court noted that Mr. Washburn signed the trust amendment only eleven weeks before the sale contract. If he lacked capacity to sign the contract because of a long decline, the same allegation would necessarily call the amendment into question. There was no way to separate the two dates. The allegation about the "last few months" of his life did not help either, because that period came long after he signed the contract.

3. The sale was part of the distribution plan

The June 2023 amendment tied the real estate distribution to trustee sale contracts. That made the sale part of how the grantor intended his estate to pass. The sale would produce a simple cash distribution. Undoing it would replace that with tenancy-in-common restrictions, rights of first refusal, and multiple appraisals. The court held this would impair the trust.

What This Means for Trust Beneficiaries

Read the entire no-contest clause. Don't assume it applies only to a lawsuit that attacks the trust document directly. Words like "directly or indirectly," "any dispute," and "on any ground whatsoever" matter.

The label on your claim does not control. Calling your claim a challenge to a "separate contract" will not protect you if success would, in practical effect, impair the trust's distribution plan.

Use the safe-harbor procedure before you file. Section 456.4-420 lets you ask the court whether a specific proposed claim would trigger a forfeiture. You get that answer before you put your inheritance at risk. The beneficiaries in Washburn did exactly this. The ruling governs if you go forward with the claims you described.

Your factual allegations will be examined closely. The court weighed the verified facts the beneficiaries alleged, including the timing of the alleged mental decline. Vague or sweeping allegations can pull a claim within the clause's reach.

Every case is different. Outcomes depend on the specific clause language and the facts. A narrower clause or different circumstances could lead to a different result.

What This Means for Trustees

The successor trustee here faced beneficiaries who opposed a sale. He petitioned the court for instructions rather than acting unilaterally. A trustee who is uncertain how to administer a trust in the face of beneficiary disputes can seek judicial guidance. That can protect both the trustee and the trust.

What This Means If You Are Creating a Trust

Washburn confirms that Missouri grantors have wide latitude to decide what conduct forfeits a beneficiary's share. If you want a later transaction, like a real estate sale, to be protected as part of your plan, how you tie it into your trust documents matters. Clear, deliberate drafting is what gives a no-contest clause its force.

Talk to a Missouri Trust Attorney Before You Act

Whether you are a beneficiary weighing a challenge, a trustee facing opposition, or someone planning your own estate, a no-contest clause can change everything. The attorneys at Beal & Whitener LLP in Clayton help Missouri families navigate trust disputes and estate planning. Contact us to discuss your situation before you take a step you cannot undo.