Ind. Code » Title 29
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2 (2026)

Contest of wills; admission prevented; forfeiture of benefits

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a no contest provision is enforceable according to the express terms of the no contest provision.

     (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the following proceedings:

(1) An action brought by a beneficiary if good cause is found by a court.

(2) An action brought by an executor or other fiduciary of a will that incorporates a no contest provision, unless the executor or other fiduciary is a beneficiary against whom the no contest provision is otherwise enforceable.

(3) An agreement, including a nonjudicial settlement agreement, among beneficiaries and any other interested persons to settle or resolve any other matter relating to a will or estate.

(4) An action to determine whether a proposed or pending motion or proceeding constitutes a contest.

(5) An action brought by or on behalf of a beneficiary to seek a ruling regarding the construction or interpretation of a will.

(6) An action or objection brought by a beneficiary, an executor, or other fiduciary that seeks a ruling on proposed distributions, fiduciary fees, or any other matter where a court has discretion.

(7) An action brought by the attorney general that:

(A) seeks a ruling regarding the construction or interpretation of:

(i) a will containing a charitable trust or charitable bequest; or

(ii) a no contest provision contained in a will or trust that purports to penalize a charity or charitable interest; or

(B) institutes any other proceedings relating to:

(i) an estate; or

(ii) a trust;

if good cause is shown to do so.

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.112, s.602. As amended by P.L.136-2018, SEC.215; P.L.163-2018, SEC.4; P.L.215-2018(ss), SEC.13.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Burch v. George, 866 P.2d 92 (Cal. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burch v. George, 866 P.2d 92 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “In a few states such clauses are unlawful, and are given no effect, apparently based on the view that "to inhibit a party from ascertaining his rights by appeal to the [courts]" is "against the fundamental principles of justice.”
Angel M Mohr v. Star A Johnston (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “” Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2 (b)(1). The designated evidence demonstrates that Johnston, a residual beneficiary, acted in good faith when she filed her petition to open the estate.”
In The Matter of The Est. Rex Felten (Iowa 2025). “75 (citing Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2 (1992); Fla. Stat. § 732.”
Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2(a): 1 case
Angel M Mohr v. Star A Johnston (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2 (b)(1). The designated evidence demonstrates that Johnston, a residual beneficiary, acted in good faith when she filed her petition to open the estate.”
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.