No-contest provisions in wills are commonly not enforced so long as the contesting party has:

• A. Probable cause
• B. A properly witnessed will
• C. The consent of relatives
• D. A lawyer's certification

Answer: (A)

No-contest provisions are meant to deter people from challenging a will, but courts won’t punish a challenger who has a reasonable basis to contest. The key point here is probable cause: if the contest has a legitimate foundation in facts or law—such as claims of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, or improper execution—courts typically will not enforce the no-contest clause against that person. In other words, the clause is designed to discourage weak or frivolous challenges, but it recognizes that a challenger with probable cause should not be penalized for pursuing a legitimate dispute.

Having probable cause means there is a reasonable basis to believe the will might be invalid or defective, so enforcing the no-contest clause would be contrary to fairness and public policy. The other factors listed don’t establish why the clause shouldn’t apply: whether a will is properly witnessed speaks to validity, not to the discretion of enforcing a no-contest clause; consent of relatives is not what determines enforcement; and a lawyer’s certification isn’t the mechanism that governs whether the clause applies.