## Facts

- An irrevocable trust named Shelby Investments, LLC as sole trustee and Samuel S. Knopik as sole beneficiary.
- The trust required the trustee to distribute $100 per month to Knopik from December 2016 through December 2020.
- The trust contained a no-contest clause providing that the beneficiary’s interest would terminate if he (a) contested or attacked the trust or its provisions, (b) asserted any claim against the trustee, or (c) sought to remove Shelby as trustee.
- Shelby made the first $100 payment, then stopped making distributions and indicated it would not continue paying.
- Knopik sued, alleging breach of trust for nonpayment and seeking removal of Shelby as trustee.
- Knopik did not file a separate action under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 456.4-420 to obtain a determination about the no-contest clause before filing his petition.
- Shelby counterclaimed for declaratory judgment that Knopik’s suit triggered the no-contest clause and moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Shelby and declared Knopik’s interest terminated; Knopik appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust’s no-contest clause terminating the beneficiary’s interest for asserting claims against the trustee or seeking the trustee’s removal is enforceable under Missouri law.
2. Whether Knopik’s breach-of-trust and trustee-removal lawsuit triggered the no-contest clause when he did not first seek relief or a determination under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 456.4-420.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the summary judgment for the trustee.
- The court held the no-contest clause was enforceable because it was clear, unambiguous, and reflected the settlor’s expressed intent.
- The court held Knopik’s petition fell within the clause because it asserted claims against the trustee and sought the trustee’s removal.
- The court held Knopik forfeited his beneficial interest by filing the petition without first seeking relief or a prefiling determination under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 456.4-420.
- Summary judgment was proper because the relevant facts (the trust language, the pleaded claims, and the absence of § 456.4-420 relief) were undisputed.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri courts generally enforce trust no-contest clauses when their terms are clear and unambiguous and do not violate public policy.
- Courts give effect to the settlor’s expressed intent as written and do not create implied exceptions not found in the trust instrument.
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 456.4-420 provides a mechanism for a beneficiary to seek a judicial determination regarding the enforceability or applicability of a no-contest clause before filing litigation that may trigger forfeiture.
- Filing a claim against a trustee or seeking trustee removal can trigger forfeiture when the no-contest clause expressly covers such actions and the beneficiary did not obtain § 456.4-420 relief beforehand.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the trust’s no-contest clause and held the beneficiary’s breach-of-trust and trustee-removal suit terminated his interest because he pursued prohibited litigation without first using the statutory procedure for obtaining relief or a prefiling determination under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 456.4-420.


Knopik v. Shelby Invs., LLC, 597 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. 2020)