In the Georgia Supreme Court's decision Thursday in Slosberg v. Giller, the question was whether a "no contest" clause in a will or trust could be challenged on the grounds that the clause itself was the product of undue influence:
Georgia law permits a settlor or testator to include in his trust instrument or will an "in terrorem clause" …[,] also known as a "no-contest clause," … [which] acts as a disinheritance device to dissuade beneficiaries of a trust or a will from challenging the terms of the instrument.
This case involves a contentious family dispute over the effect of an in terrorem clause in a trust instrument that was executed by David Slosberg …, which said that if his son [Plaintiff] … or daughters [Defendants] … challenged the trust, they would forfeit any benefits they were to receive from it. After David died, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that Defendants unduly influenced David to create the trust that contained the in terrorem clause, and at a trial in June 2019, the jury agreed…. Defendants filed a motion notwithstanding the verdict, arguing, among other things, that the in terrorem clause contained in the trust instrument precluded Plaintiff from asserting the undue-influence claim in the first place…. [We conclude] that the in terrorem clause [does not bar] Plaintiff's undue-influence claim and [does not result] in forfeiture of the assets the trust instrument otherwise provided.
Justice Charles Bethel concurred:
