A no-contest or in terrorem clause in a will or a trust typically makes the gifts in the instrument conditional on the beneficiary not challenging or disputing the validity of the instrument. The term in terrorem, as applied to wills, refers to a gift given on the condition that the beneficiary will not dispute the validity or disposition of the will.

In terrorem clauses are designed to dissuade beneficiaries from filing vexatious litigation that might thwart the intent of the testator (person who made the will) or the grantor or settlor (person who created the trust).

In terrorem clauses allow the intent of the testator to be given full effect and avoid vexatious litigation—often among members of the same family. If the intention of a suit is to thwart the settlor's intention, the in terrorem clause should be enforced. Laws vary from state to state but a violation of the in terrorem clause will usually be found only when the acts of the parties clearly fall within its express terms. Thus, many courts narrowly construe in terrorem clauses to avoid forfeiture, while also fulfilling the settlor's intent.

And some courts have held that filing suit to determine a testator's intent, or to ascertain a beneficiary's interest under a will, is not a suit intended to dispute the validity of the will. A suit brought in good faith and upon probable cause, to ascertain the real purpose and intention of the testator and to then enforce such purpose and intention, is not an effort to vary the purpose and intention of the will.

These courts reason that a motion to contest a will is, like any other motion, merely a pleading that is the necessary vehicle by which the movant raises issues for resolution. A motion is not self-proving. If the mere filing of a motion to contest a will is a contest of the will, this would be inconsistent with the legal significance of a motion.

In states whose courts follow this reasoning, unless some further action is taken to thwart the intention of the testator, the mere filing of a contest motion is insufficient to cause a forfeiture under an in terrorem clause.

In Utah, a no-contest or in terrorem clause in a will or trust is legally recognized and can be enforced to prevent beneficiaries from challenging the validity of the document. These clauses are intended to uphold the wishes of the testator or settlor by discouraging frivolous or vexatious litigation that could undermine their intentions. Utah courts may narrowly interpret in terrorem clauses to avoid the harsh result of forfeiture unless the actions of the beneficiary clearly violate the express terms of the clause. Furthermore, Utah law acknowledges that not all challenges to a will are made in bad faith; actions taken with probable cause and in good faith to ascertain the testator's intent or to clarify a beneficiary's interest may not trigger the in terrorem clause. This means that simply filing a motion to contest a will, without further actions to subvert the testator's intent, may not be sufficient to enforce the penalty under an in terrorem clause. Beneficiaries in Utah considering challenging a will or trust with such a clause should consult with an attorney to understand the potential risks and legal implications of their actions.