Over a dissent, this decision holds that the trial court properly denied Dae’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike Traver’s probate petition to declare that Dae had violated a no contest clause by filing an earlier petition challenging Traver’s acts as trustee.  Dae’s petition was protected conduct, but Traver introduced evidence sufficient to show that he had a probability of success on the no contest clause claim.  Dae’s earlier petition had broadly challenged the trustees’ conduct in, among other things, establishing a split dollar trust and buying life insurance on some primary trust beneficiaries–a transaction that nearly doubled the trust’s investment when one of the insured beneficiaries died.  At least on that broad claim, Traver had a chance of proving the claim was frivolous and thus triggered the no contest clause.