## Facts

- David Slosberg created an inter vivos trust benefiting his three children: Robert Slosberg, Suzanne Giller, and Lynne Amy Seidner.
- The trust included an in terrorem (no-contest) clause providing that any beneficiary who “challenged the trust” would forfeit trust benefits.
- After David’s death, Robert sued Suzanne and Lynne, alleging they unduly influenced David to create and execute the trust instrument.
- A jury found undue influence, and the trial court entered an order declaring the trust instrument void.
- Suzanne and Lynne moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing the in terrorem clause barred Robert’s undue-influence claim and required forfeiture of his trust interest; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the in terrorem clause barred the undue-influence claim and caused forfeiture.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to review whether the in terrorem clause could bar Robert’s undue-influence challenge to the trust’s validity.

## Issues

1. Whether an in terrorem clause may be enforced to bar a beneficiary’s claim that the trust instrument (including the clause itself) is void because it was procured by undue influence.
2. Whether asserting an undue-influence challenge to the trust’s validity triggers forfeiture under an in terrorem clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the in terrorem clause did not bar Robert’s undue-influence claim attacking the validity of the trust instrument.
- The court concluded forfeiture could not be imposed based on Robert’s undue-influence challenge to the trust’s existence and validity.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Georgia law generally permits in terrorem (no-contest) clauses in trusts, functioning to deter beneficiaries from challenging the instrument’s terms.
- Enforcement of an in terrorem clause presupposes the validity of the instrument containing it; a clause within an allegedly void trust cannot be used to prevent litigation over whether the trust is void.
- An undue-influence claim that attacks the formation and validity of the trust instrument itself is not barred by an in terrorem clause and does not trigger forfeiture on that basis.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia limited the reach of no-contest clauses by holding that a beneficiary may litigate an undue-influence claim challenging a trust’s validity without forfeiting benefits under an in terrorem clause contained in the disputed instrument.


Slosberg v. Giller, 314 Ga. 89, 876 S.E.2d 228 (Ga. 2022)