Which of the following is an exception to enforcing a no-contest clause?

• A. The beneficiary objects on the grounds of forgery
• B. The beneficiary refuses to join in probate petition
• C. The beneficiary objects to the court's jurisdiction
• D. All of the above

Answer: (D)

A no-contest clause generally discourages beneficiaries from challenging a will or trust by penalizing them, but certain challenges are carved out as exceptions. If a beneficiary challenges the instrument on grounds of forgery, the validity of the document is in question, so enforcing the clause would run against correcting fraud and protecting the true intent of the maker. The act of refusing to join in probate can also be treated as an exception in some contexts, because the issue may be procedural rather than a direct attack on the instrument’s terms, and forcing participation through the clause could thwart legitimate probate administration. Finally, objecting to the court’s jurisdiction is not a challenge to the substance of the will or trust; it concerns the proper forum or authority to hear the matter, so it’s generally not barred by the no-contest provision.

Taken together, these scenarios illustrate why all of these situations are considered exceptions to enforcing a no-contest clause.