Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire recently "upheld the decision of a probate to dismiss a complaint brought by Elizabeth 'Betty' Tamposi, the disinherited daughter of the late Samuel Tamposi, Sr." The court also held that the probate court was correct to remove Julie Shelton as the trustee of Tamposi's trust.
Betty was cut out of the family's fortune because she challenged the terms of Tamposi's trust, which apparently had an "in terrorem" clause. This clause is more commonly known as a "no contest" clause. With a no contest clause, if a person challenges the validity of the terms of a will or trust that person will lose the right to benefit from the will or trust. In this case, Betty immediately disproved of the terms of the trust, including the fact that her two older brothers were to manage the trust. Her attorney appealed the decision of the probate court in 2007 arguing that the she did not violate the no contest clause when she filed her complaint disputing the terms of the trust. The court rejected her arguments and those that Shelton raised about her removal as the trustee of the trust and her request for attorney's fees.
Provided here is link to the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
See Patrick Meighan, Supreme Court Rules Against Former Tamposi Heir Cut Out of Late Developer's Trust, The Telegraph, Feb. 1, 2013.