Karen J. Sneddon, Mercer Law School, has made available for download her article, “Voice, Strength, and No-Contest Clauses,” published in the Wisconsin Law Review. The Abstract is as follows:
The will is a unilateral written disposition of probate property to be effective upon the will-maker’s death. To have any legal effect, however, the will-maker’s family, beneficiaries, and personal representatives, along with the probate court, need to implement the will provisions. To buttress the strength of the will, the language of the will is definitive, certain, and strong. But when the will relies upon standardized language, the voice of the will-maker is flattened or even non-existent. The absence of the willmaker’s voice may jeopardize the legal effect of the will. This Article argues that the over-reliance on “time-tested” formulaic language endows the will with a mechanical, masculine voice that is ill fitting for most testators and does not advance the goals of testators. Specifically, this Article will focus on the use and language of the no-contest clause. Will-makers and will-drafters have long abandoned the language of in terrorem clauses that threaten eternal damnation for anyone who seeks to alter the terms of the will. The replacement language uses false strength to intimidate beneficiaries by referencing a potential forfeiture of a testamentary gift. The standard no-contest clause has continuing appeal to testators and drafters, despite concerns raised about the flattening of the testator’s voice and provocative nature of the language. This Article argues that the value of the no-contest clause is undermined by the generic, hollow language replicated in form no-contest clauses. Rather than discouraging will contests, the language may actually encourage will contests. After all, a will is more than a mere legal instrument that transfers widgets and greenacres. The voice in the will should be authentic and genuine.