Cal. Codes » Probate Code / DIVISION 11. CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS, TRUSTS, AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS / PART 3. NO CONTEST CLAUSE
California Codes

Cal. Probate Code § 21311 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A no contest clause shall only be enforced against the following types of contests:

(1)A direct contest that is brought without probable cause.

(2)A pleading to challenge a transfer of property on the grounds that it was not the transferor’s property at the time of the transfer. A no contest clause shall only be enforced under this paragraph if the no contest clause expressly provides for that application.

(3)The filing of a creditor’s claim or prosecution of an action based on it. A no contest clause shall only be enforced under this paragraph if the no contest clause expressly provides for that application.

(b)For the purposes of this section, probable cause exists if, at the time of filing a contest, the facts known to the contestant would cause a reasonable person to believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requested relief will be granted after an opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Urick v. Urick, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Urick v. Urick, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 2× “" ( *1194 Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a)(1).) 4 A "direct contest" is a contest that alleges one or more terms of a protected instrument are invalid based on a ground listed in Probate Code section 21310, including "[m]enace, duress, fraud, or undue influence.”
Key v. Tyler, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “( Prob. Code, § 21311.) 2 With respect to the request for attorney fees, the court ruled that Key had failed to identify any statutory or equitable basis for the request.”
Jenifer Duncan v. Olga Rawls, 812 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “8 7 The language of the in terrorem provision in the August 2013 trust document is very broad and applies even to challenges brought “in good faith and with probable cause[.”
Munn v. Briggs, 185 Cal. App. 4th 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “5 The new statutes limit the enforceability of no contest clauses to only three types of claims: (1) direct contests brought without probable cause; (2) challenges to the transferor’s ownership of property at the time of the transfer if expressly included in the no contest…”
Urick v. Urick (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” (Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a)(1).)4 A “direct contest” is a contest that alleges one or more terms of a protected instrument are invalid based on a ground listed in Probate Code section 21310, including “[m]enace, duress, fraud, or undue influence.”
Harrison v. Dourec CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” (Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a).) Probate Code section 21310, added to the Code at the same time as section 21311, defines “‘[c]ontest’” as “a pleading filed with the court by a beneficiary that would result in a penalty under a no contest clause, if the no contest clause is…”
Key v. Tyler (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). “(Prob. Code, § 21311.)2 With respect to the request for attorney fees, the court ruled that Key had failed to identify any statutory or equitable basis for the request.”
Key v. Tyler (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). “(Prob. Code, § 21311.)2 With respect to the request for attorney fees, the court ruled that Key had failed to identify any statutory or equitable basis for the request.”
Urick v. Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “” (Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a).) A “Direct contest” is one which “alleges the invalidity of a protected instrument or one or more of its terms, based on one or more of the following grounds: [¶] .”
Urick v. Urick CA2/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “” (Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a)(1).) A “ ‘[d]irect contest’ ” is a contest that alleges one or more terms of a protected instrument are invalid based on a ground listed in Probate Code section 21310, subdivision (b)(4), including “[m]enace, duress, fraud, or undue influence.”
Key v. Tyler (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “(Prob. Code, § 21311, subd. (a)(1).)3 Indeed, Tyler does not dispute that her share of personal property that is expressly specified in the Original Trust is subject to forfeiture.”
Koski v. Campbell CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “” In addition, although Article Thirteen (of the Restatement) already contained a no contest clause, and although Articles Ten and Thirteen already authorized the trustee to defend the trust, the Second Amendment added to Article Eight the following no contest clause and a…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Cal. Probate Code § 21311(b) — 1 case
Koski v. Campbell CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “” In addition, although Article Thirteen (of the Restatement) already contained a no contest clause, and although Articles Ten and Thirteen already authorized the trustee to defend the trust, the Second Amendment added to Article Eight the following no contest clause and a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.