Disclaimer: General educational research only — not legal advice. Will and trust contest law varies by state, and every case turns on its own facts. Talk with an estate planning attorney in your state about your own documents.
Estate Planning Data & Research → Will Contest Watch
Most wills are never challenged. When one is, the fight can last years and work its way up to an appeals court, and those appellate decisions show what actually goes wrong.
We collected the published will- and trust-contest opinions we could find on CourtListener, a free database of court opinions, filed between Jan. 1, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2026. A rule-based classifier flagged likely contests, and then we read the flagged opinions ourselves, dropped the ones that weren’t really will or trust contests, and sorted the rest by state, legal ground and outcome. The result is 126 contest opinions from 27 states. This covers published opinions that CourtListener indexes, not all will contests. Most contests are settled or decided in trial courts and never produce a published opinion.
If you are deciding how to protect your own family from a fight like these, see whether you need a will, a living trust or both.
Downloads
Cite this page URL when reusing findings. Not a substitute for official sources or professional advice.
Key findings
- 126 will and trust contest opinions in 21 months. Courts in 27 states issued them, 72 in 2025 and 54 from January through September 2026.
- Undue influence is the most common claim. It was raised or discussed in 75 of the 126 opinions (60%). Lack of mental capacity came up in 71 (56%).
- Seven in ten turned on the testator’s mind or free will. 90 opinions (71%) involved undue influence, capacity or both, and 56 involved both.
- Paperwork problems matter too. Execution and formalities, such as witnessing, signatures and self-proving affidavits, came up in 44 opinions (35%). Fraud or forgery came up in 26 (21%).
- No-contest clauses were at issue in 12 opinions (10%). These are clauses that cut out a beneficiary who challenges the document.
- Most fights are over wills, but trusts aren’t immune. 108 opinions involved a will only, and 18 involved a trust or a trust and a will.
- Appeals courts usually left the result alone, but not always. Of the 111 opinions with a clear appellate decision, 68 (61%) affirmed and 43 (39%) reversed or vacated the lower court in whole or in part.
- Texas and New York produced the most opinions. Texas had 31 and New York 17, followed by Ohio with 9 and Iowa with 8. These counts reflect how many opinions each state’s courts publish, not how often wills are contested there.
Contest opinions by state
| State | Contest opinions | Undue influence | Capacity | Execution | Fraud/forgery | No-contest clause | Affirmed | Reversed (whole/part) | Opinions without text (note) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | 31 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 14 | 12 | 0 |
| New York | 17 | 13 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Ohio | 9 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| Iowa | 8 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Mississippi | 7 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Delaware | 6 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Florida | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Louisiana | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Arkansas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Illinois | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Alabama | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Arizona | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| California | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Indiana | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Maine | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| West Virginia | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Montana | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Oregon | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| South Dakota | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Utah | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Family Estate Guide analysis of opinions indexed by CourtListener (Free Law Project) and filed Jan. 1, 2025–Sept. 30, 2026, pulled Oct. 8–9, 2026. Grounds are counted when an opinion raises or discusses them, so one opinion can count under several grounds. “Reversed (whole/part)” includes partial reversals. Note: opinions that matched our searches but whose text we could not retrieve, so they could not be classified. Federal courts are excluded from this table. Affirmed plus reversed won’t add up to the total because trial-level rulings, dismissed appeals and mandamus petitions are counted separately. All 362 screened opinions, including our review notes, are in the CSV download.
What contestants argue
| Ground raised or discussed | Opinions | Share of contest opinions |
|---|---|---|
| Undue influence | 75 | 60% |
| Capacity | 71 | 56% |
| Execution/formalities | 44 | 35% |
| Fraud or forgery | 26 | 21% |
| Revocation | 26 | 21% |
| No-contest clause | 12 | 10% |
An opinion counts toward a ground when that ground is raised or discussed in the text. It doesn’t mean the claim succeeded.
Undue influence means someone pressured the person making the will (the testator) until the will reflected that person’s wishes instead of the testator’s own. Courts often look at whether a caregiver or relative who benefited was involved in getting the will made.
Capacity asks whether the testator understood what they owned, who their family was and what the will did when they signed it. A dementia diagnosis alone doesn’t automatically mean a person lacked capacity.
Execution or formalities covers how the will was signed and witnessed. Fraud or forgery covers claims that the testator was deceived or didn’t sign at all. Revocation covers fights over whether a later will or act cancelled an earlier one.
How the appeals came out
| Outcome (automated read) | Opinions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Affirmed | 68 | 54% |
| Reversed or vacated | 30 | 24% |
| Mixed (in part) | 13 | 10% |
| Appeal dismissed | 4 | 3% |
| Original proceeding (mandamus) | 5 | 4% |
| Trial-level ruling | 6 | 5% |
| Unclear | 0 | 0% |
Outcomes were taken from each opinion’s closing language and checked by hand. “Trial-level ruling” means the opinion came from a trial court (for example, Delaware’s Court of Chancery or a New York Surrogate’s Court), so there’s no appellate result. “Appeal dismissed” and “original proceeding (mandamus)” cover opinions that did not decide the appeal on the merits or that ruled on a request for a court order to a lower court. Every outcome in the set could be identified, so none is listed as unclear.
Four recent cases that show how wills get challenged
A forgery claim against a self-proved will (Texas). In In the Estate of Reynaldo Contreras Hernandez (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Apr. 22, 2026), a daughter argued her father’s signatures on his will and its self-proving affidavit were forged. The probate court agreed on summary judgment. The appeals court reversed, saying a self-proving affidavit creates prima facie evidence of proper execution under Texas Estates Code § 251.102, and that competing evidence about the signature had to be decided at trial.
Does a witness need to know it’s a will? (Texas). In In the Estate of Chester Freeman Youngblood (Tex. App.—Amarillo, Sept. 24, 2025, on rehearing), the trial court threw out a 2016 will because one of the witnesses testified he didn’t know he was witnessing a will. The appeals court disagreed, writing that “the law requires witnesses to observe a signature—not to understand the legal significance behind it.” It held the will valid, reversed and sent the case back for further proceedings.
A remotely witnessed will (Illinois). In In re Estate of Felner, 2026 IL App (1st) 251143 (Sept. 10, 2026), three petitioners, including the decedent’s grandson, challenged a will that was signed in May 2020 in front of two witnesses by video, under Illinois’s Electronic Wills, Electronic Estate Planning Documents, and Remote Witnesses Act. The appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to admit the will, after a hearing on whether the signing substantially complied with the Act.
A no-contest clause and a withdrawn challenge (California). In Nelson v. Nelson (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2026), a beneficiary petitioned to invalidate a trust and then withdrew the petition. The appeals court held that an old “paper contest” exception doesn’t apply to no-contest clauses governed by California’s current statute (Probate Code § 21310 and following). It sent the case back so the probate court can decide whether the petition counted as a contest and, if so, whether the clause can be enforced.
Why the numbers differ from state to state
Publishing rules vary. Some states publish most appellate decisions, and others publish only a fraction. Texas has more than a dozen intermediate courts of appeals that issue a large volume of civil memorandum opinions, and CourtListener indexes them. States that publish less will look quieter here.
Most contests never reach an appeals court. Will contests are filed in probate or trial courts, and most settle or end there. This page counts written opinions, not lawsuits, so it can’t tell you how often wills are contested.
Published opinions aren’t a random sample. Courts tend to publish decisions that clarify the law or change a result. The 39% reversal figure describes this set of opinions only, and shouldn’t be read as the odds of winning an appeal.
Some texts were missing. After a second retrieval pass we still couldn’t get the text of 38 of the 352 unique opinions we screened. About 31 of those look estate-related, most of them from Georgia (5), Massachusetts (4), Alabama, Florida and Missouri (3 each). We left them out rather than guess, so those states may be undercounted.
What this means for your family
Most of these fights are preventable, or at least winnable. The grounds that come up most are the ones good planning addresses directly.
- Sign it properly, and make it self-proving where your state allows. A self-proving affidavit, signed before a notary with your witnesses, lets the will be admitted without tracking down witnesses later. As the Texas forgery case shows, it doesn’t end every fight, but in Texas it is prima facie evidence that the will was properly executed.
- Use disinterested witnesses. Witnesses who don’t inherit under the will are harder to attack.
- Document your capacity and independence if a challenge seems likely. People sometimes ask their attorney to note how the will was discussed and signed, or have a physician’s assessment near the signing date. Keep beneficiaries out of the room during the signing.
- Consider a no-contest clause. One in ten opinions here involved one. Whether a clause is enforced depends on state law, and many states won’t enforce one against a challenger who had probable cause.
- Consider a revocable living trust. Trusts can be contested too, but a funded trust avoids probate and is administered privately. Many families use a trust with a short “pour-over” will. See funding your trust.
- Tell your family your plan. Surprises fuel lawsuits. A short conversation or letter explaining your choices can head off a challenge.
Many of these contests started with an old will, a late change made in a hurry or a document signed without proper witnesses. A carefully executed will or trust, updated when your life changes, is the best defense your family has.
Related: Cost of dying without a will by state · Probate lawyer gap · Essential estate documents
Related research: Trust Litigation Watch applies the same method to published opinions on trustee removal, no-contest clauses and trust challenges.
Methodology
Collection. CourtListener (Free Law Project) search API v4, opinion search, filed after Jan. 1, 2025, run Oct. 8, 2026, with text retrieval and manual review completed Oct. 9. We ran six searches: “will contest” phrases, undue influence with testator or decedent and will, “testamentary capacity,” no-contest or in terrorem clauses, execution terms (due execution, attesting witness, holographic will, self-proving) with probate, and trust contests. They returned 362 opinion clusters. CourtListener’s default search covers opinions it labels precedential or published. Where the same case produced more than one opinion (for example, an opinion withdrawn and reissued on rehearing), we kept the latest, leaving 352 unique cases.
Text. We downloaded each opinion from the court’s own website using the link CourtListener provides and extracted the text. We got usable text for 314 of the 352 unique cases. The other 38 couldn’t be retrieved, and we did not include them or guess at them.
Classification and review. A rule-based classifier (not an AI model) counted legal terms in each opinion and flagged 139 opinions as likely contests. We then read each flagged opinion. 95 were will or trust contests. The other 44 (32%) were related disputes, such as legal malpractice claims over an estate plan, trustee accounting and fee fights, guardianship cases, marital agreements and challenges to lifetime transfers, and we dropped them. We also read 73 opinions the classifier had not flagged and found 31 more real contests, which we added. The remaining 83 unflagged state-court opinions had few will or contest terms and were not read one by one, so some contests may be missing. A case counts as a contest here if someone challenged the validity, signing, revocation or admission to probate of a will or trust, including disputes over no-contest clauses that arose from such a challenge.
Grounds and outcomes. A ground counts when its terms appear repeatedly in the opinion, so it means the ground was raised or discussed, not that it succeeded. We took each outcome from the opinion’s closing language and checked it by hand. Where an opinion only decided a procedural question, such as standing or jurisdiction, we still counted it under its outcome.
Case summaries. The four cases above were re-read in full against the courts’ published opinions on Oct. 9, 2026.
Frequently asked questions
What is the most common reason a will is contested?
In the 126 opinions we reviewed, undue influence came up most often (60%), followed by lack of capacity (56%). 71% involved one or both.
Can a self-proving affidavit stop a will contest?
Not completely. It makes the will easier to admit and, in Texas for example, is prima facie evidence that the will was properly executed. A challenger can still offer evidence of forgery, incapacity or undue influence.
Are no-contest clauses enforceable?
It depends on the state. Many states enforce them but make exceptions, such as for a challenge brought with probable cause. One in ten opinions in our data involved a no-contest clause.
Can a living trust be contested?
Yes. 18 of the 126 opinions involved a trust. Trusts are usually challenged on the same grounds as wills, such as capacity and undue influence.
How often are wills contested?
No national source counts will contests. This page counts published opinions that CourtListener indexes, mostly from appeals courts, which are a small, non-random slice of all probate disputes.
Sources
All accessed Oct. 8–9, 2026.
Data
- CourtListener search API v4 (Free Law Project), opinion search (
type=o),filed_after=2025-01-01, six queries. https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/ — using a free CourtListener API key. Result: 362 opinion clusters → - Second retrieval pass (Oct. 9): CourtListener’s opinion-text API was throttled (HTTP 429, about 2.7 hours to reset), so missing texts were re-requested from the courts’ own sites, including tncourts.gov, which needs a JavaScript cookie and was fetched with a normal headless Chrome session. No site blocks were bypassed; pages that returned 403/404 were left unfetched.
Cases summarized in the article (re-read in full against the opinion text on Oct. 9, 2026)
- In the Estate of Reynaldo Contreras Hernandez, No. 04-25-00001-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Apr. 22, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10848742/in-the-estate-of-reynaldo-contreras-hernandez-v-the-state-of-texas/ (court PDF: search.txcourts.gov). Cites Tex. Est. Code §§ 251.051, 251.102, 256.106.
- In the Estate of Chester Freeman Youngblood, No. 07-24-00404-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo, Sept. 24, 2025; substituted opinion on rehearing, original June 27, 2025). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10677125/in-the-estate-of-chester-freeman-youngblood-v-the-state-of-texas/
- In re Estate of Felner, 2026 IL App (1st) 251143 (Sept. 10, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10970582/in-re-estate-of-felner/ (court PDF: illinoiscourts.gov). Electronic Wills, Electronic Estate Planning Documents, and Remote Witnesses Act, 755 ILCS 6/.
- Nelson v. Nelson, Nos. A159271/A160751 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 3, filed Sept. 30, 2026, certified for publication). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10988967/nelson-v-nelson/ (court PDF: courts.ca.gov archive). Cal. Prob. Code §§ 21310–21311.
Cite this data
Family Estate Guide, “Will Contest Watch: Appellate Will and Trust Fights by State and Legal Ground,” October 2026. https://familyestateguide.com/estate-planning-data/will-contest-watch/
You’re welcome to reuse the tables with a link back to this page. Court opinions are public records, and CourtListener’s case data is provided by the Free Law Project.
Published October 9, 2026 by Family Estate Guide. Data vintage: opinions filed Jan. 1, 2025–Sept. 30, 2026, indexed by CourtListener, pulled Oct. 8–9, 2026. Editorial standards.