No Application of Iranian Inheritance Law in Maryland Court

From In re Estate of Ahmad, decided Mar. 23 by the Maryland intermediate appellate court, in an opinion by Judge Dan Friedman, joined by Justices Douglas Nazarian and Terrence Zic:

The decedent, Mehdi Ahmad, was born in Iran in 1923…. In 1982, after being summoned to appear before the Islamic Revolutionary Court, Mehdi left Iran and traveled to Turkey. Shortly thereafter, Mehdi immigrated to the United States and settled in Maryland…. In 1996, Mehdi became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Mehdi died on November 30, 2018.

Mehdi's will disinherited Mehdi's eldest son, M. Abraham Ahmad, who tried to challenge it on various grounds, partly on the theory that "under Iranian laws, he inherited an indefeasible fixed portion of Mehdi's estate that automatically vested at his birth and applies to all assets that can be traced to assets that Mehdi owned when Abraham was born in Iran." No, said the court, for various reasons, including this:

Finally, we note that, even if the doctrine of comity {the recognition that one nation may decide to give to the executive, legislative, or judicial acts of another} was applicable here, there are well established limits on its application "when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act" seeking to be applied…. As a general concept, the Iranian civil law tradition of forced primogeniture heirship conflicts with Maryland's adoption of statutory provisions allowing any competent person aged 18 or older to make a will to dispose of their estate as they see fit.

Moreover, the Islamic primogeniture inheritance laws that Abraham seeks to enforce include provisions that discriminate based on both religion and sex. {See The Civil Code Of The Islamic Republic of Iran [1928], art. 881b ("An unbeliever (Kafir) does not take inheritance from [Muslims] and if there are unbelievers among the heirs of a deceased unbeliever, the unbelieving heirs do not take inheritance even if they are prior to the Muslim as concerns class and degree."); art. 907 ("If there are several children, some being sons and some daughters[,] each son takes twice as much as each daughter.").} To disregard Mehdi's choice as expressed in his will in favor of applying Iranian primogeniture law to Mehdi's estate would be contrary to Maryland public policy. {There is an irony to Abraham's position. The American Revolution overthrew a hereditary patriarchy in favor of republicanism. Although historians debate the effect of the American Revolution on state inheritance laws, it would be unusual if the framers of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights [the Maryland due process clause] intended for it to be used to force feudal primogeniture on Mehdi's estate. Rather, we understand that Marylanders are and remain free to decide what to do with their estates after death without either the State or religion limiting those choices.}

Congratulations to Todd P. Forster (Futrovsky, Forster & Scherr, Chartered), who represented the estate.

Comments

[Ruqt]

From Opinion. Decedent was "a naturalized citizen of the United States; he had both a United States’ social security card and passport; he had a Maryland drivers’ license; he filed state and federal taxes in Maryland; he owned businesses in Maryland; he lived in Maryland for more than thirty years before his death; and he executed a will that stated he was “presently a resident
of and domiciled in the State of Maryland.” (Emphasis added. [by Court])"

I am ignorant of the law; is the language of the will alone sufficient
to defeat a challenge to Iranian or any non-Maryland domicile?

[Tom for equal rights]

As a resident of Maryland, transfer of property at death are governed by the laws of Maryland (or what ever state the decedent is a resident of). Assuming, the decedent had capacity at time of signing the will, (and the procedural rules followed), then the will would be valid under MD law including the disinheriting of the son.

Perhaps, the son should not have done whatever the son did to get disinherited.

[mulched]

Perhaps. But his contention was that he had a pre-existing interest in the estate, independent of Maryland law, that wasn't extinguished by the will.

The issue was how Maryland treats foreign law, not so much what Maryland estate law says.

[Joe_dallas]

State law will govern since he is resident of said state.

He promise of future inheritance can always be revoke - at least until an irrevocable transfer has been made - ie transfer of title under applicable state law

[Eugene Volokh]

A statement that one is domiciled in a state isn't sufficient to prove that one is indeed domiciled there; for instance, if I don't live in Wyoming and have shown no connection to Wyoming, simply saying in a will that I'm domiciled in Wyoming isn't enough. But because the test for domicile turns in part on intent -- "Intent is the controlling factor in determining a person’s domicile, in that a person’s domicile is, generally speaking, 'that place where he intends to be'" -- the person's statements can be considerable evidence of that intent, especially when there is other relevant evidence (e.g., extended physical presence in the place).

[Ruqt]

Professor Volokh,
The answer I was expecting, thank you. An attorney might suspect that a simple declaration in a signed document, even a will, is not determinative of facts subject to disproval elsewhere. The opportunity for fraud is apparent and law has proven itself bound by demonstrable proof rather than assumptions.

Without knowing more about other possible grounds for contesting the will, the plaintiff-son's legal theory -precedence of Iranian Law - appears to demonstrate gross ignorance of America and our judicial system which the Court's reference to American revolutionary history emphasized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A non-attorney addendum, this comes up a *lot* in tuition classification at public universities (residents paying less).

Generally, everything a state issues (driver's licenses, vehicle registrations, hunting/fishing licenses, voter registrations, etc.) must be in that state, and you must comply with it's tax laws (i.e. filed a state tax return for the prior year as a state resident).

SCOTUS stomped on a lot of things in some ruling in the 1970s -- many states required this having been done for three prior years -- but they still can require proof of a reason of being there not related to student status, i.e off-campus residence and job.

An example: https://www.umass.edu/bursar/undergraduate-residency

[Tom for equal rights]

My first take was that it was inappropriate to address application of foreign law since he was a US citizen and MD resident.

However on further reflection, addressing the foreign is appropriate in this case. A decedent can only transfer property via his last will and testament property which he owns. If the Iranian son acquired ownership interest in the property under Iranian law and the ownership interest vested in the son while the decedent was alive and a citizen of Iran, then the son would have title to the property.

Thus the reason to explain A) why under iranian law the did not acquire and ownership interest while the decedent was alive and a citizen of Iran and B) why as a citizen and resident of MD, iranian law does not apply in this case.

[Gasman]

The son Mohammad Abraham Ahmad was similarly pretty well linked to American law, having been in the US since 1970 beginning with his college and graduate studies.
His claims to Iranian law did not seem to mention him having retained any ties, or even citizenship, to Iran in the post-revolutionary years.
But when grasping for money, one will often grasp at straws too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I consider it sheer arrogance -- he's playing the "racism" card.

[John F. Carr]

Would the decision be different if Ahmad had done some affirmative act to signal his intent for his first born son to inherit under Iranian law, prior to writing the Maryland will? I recall reading that a contract to grant real property in a not-yet-written will is enforceable, at least in some states.

[Joe_dallas]

Unlikely since prior wills can be revoked- assuming capacity at the time of writing new will.

Secondly since the promise is revocable it can be undone

[Ridgeway]

"Would the decision be different if Ahmad had done some affirmative act to signal his intent for his first born son to inherit under Iranian law, prior to writing the Maryland will? I recall reading that a contract to grant real property in a not-yet-written will is enforceable, at least in some states."

That doesn't sound right. Wouldn't that violate the Statute of Frauds two different ways?

I think a more interesting question would be it the will stated that Testator wishes his estate to be distributed in accordance with Iranian law. I doubt an American court would enforce the religious-discriminatory part, and probably not the sex-discriminatory part either. However, if he didn't give the reason for uneven allocations, he would likely have been free to give his male heirs double portions (and disinherit any "apostates").

[John F. Carr]

If the agreement is in writing, the statute of frauds is satisfied.

If it is not recorded in the registry of deeds, it is not enforceable against somebody who obtains record title without actual notice.

[Ridgeway]

Oops. I misread your original statement as referring to an oral contract.

[Voize]

The court should have skipped the discussion of sex and religious discrimination in Iranian law if, as it seems, those provisions were not applicable to the case at bar.

[Eugene Volokh]

It's a further argument for the court's decision. Courts often give such multiple alternative arguments, especially when there's the prospect of possible review by higher courts (since if Maryland's high court is asked to review the case, offering the multiple grounds may make it unnecessary for the high court to reverse and remand on one if it can affirm based on the other). I appreciate that some have argued generally against this practice, but it's pretty common, and I think for good reason.

[Voize]

I don't object to presenting valid alternate grounds, my complaint is that these aren't alternate grounds, because they don't support the judgment, because they aren't relevant given the facts of the case.

[Ruqt]

Taught in my law school classes.
"Finally, we note that, even if the doctrine of comity was applicable here, there are well established limits on its application “when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act” seeking to be applied. Aleem, 404 Md. at 420 (cleaned up). If
a foreign law directly violates some recognized principle of public policy, or some established standard of morality prevailing in the forum exercising jurisdiction, the rules of comity will not compel such forum to enforce the foreign law rather than its own, if to do so would be hurtful or detrimental to the interest and welfare of its own citizens."

[Bill Poser]

The discriminatory provisions are not directly relevant since the claimant is a male Muslim and therefore in the favored class, but they they go to show that the inheritance law of Iran as a whole does not deserve deference in the courts of Maryland.

[Voize]

Bill, that is a stronger statement than I expected. I understand you to be saying that it is a valid ground, that US courts shouldn't uphold any part of Iranian inheritance law because it is all poisoned by the presence of this repugnant provision.

I just don't know where you stop. Why just inheritance law, why not all interpersonal law? Why not all law, period? There are lots of other countries with objectionable laws too, especially about free speech and gun ownership, maybe they should all be canceled.

And in this case, it is all unnecessary. The court already properly applied the public policy doctrine to a relevant aspect of the law regarding forced primogeniture. This additional foray just muddies the waters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"maybe they should all be canceled"

Ok. Why should we give "comity" to dictatorships? They lack any consent of the governed.

[mulched]

It's right in the name. We give it because we expect/hope to get it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do we even have diplomatic relations with Iran?

How do courts recognize the law of a country we don't recognize?

[Bill Poser]

My statement is what I take the court to have meant. I agree that repugnant provisions of foreign laws should be treated as severable, where possible. It would not, for example, be desirable for US courts to refuse to recognize any marriages contracted under foreign law because some aspects of that law are repugnant.

[ReaderY]

Offering a negative opinion of a foreign country and its laws can have negative foreign relations implications. There was absolutely no need to do so gratuitously.

Moreover, the implications of the opinion, which was sweeping, are staggering. Can foreigners now expect that their contracts and domestic relations arrangements simply won’t be honored if Maryland judges don’t happen to like the legal rules underlying them? The result could be chaos. There was no need to risk instilling such chaos gratuitously. At the very least, wait until it’s necessary to have an opinion, and then decide only so much as is necessary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"negative opinion of a foreign country and its laws can have negative foreign relations implications"

Oh dear, we have insulted a terrorist supporting dictatorship that we do not have diplomatic relations with.

[ReaderY]

We’re not at war with them. And the principle the Maryland Court of Appeals articulates goes much farther than just Iran. It would cast doubt on foreign contracts, marriages, divorces, wills, dispute resolutions, and who knows what else in plenty of countries we have perfectly good relations with but who have various laws and policies that we (or at least the judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals) don’t agree with. It could make plenty of things foreigners reasonably thought to be settled unsettled. It could could result in chaos.

Part of the value of this country in the world is that foreigners can rely on our courts to treat them fairly and can know what ro expect when they deal with us. That shouldn’t be disturbed lightly.

I’ve said from time to time the Constitution often doesn’t prevent us from treating foreigners like dirt if we insist on it. But that doesn’t mean we should rush to actually DO it.

[Bob from Ohio]

No foreign government is going to pay attention to a Maryland court's dicta.

I see nothing wrong with limiting "comity" with bad foreign governments in any event.

[McSmith]

Agreed. The decision is openly Islamophobic. Seems that the case was decided by an Armenian and a Jew? No surprise, there.

Longstanding recognition of the freedom of disposition in common law systems trumping forced heirship rules from civilian jurisdictions be damned. If a testator wants his racist, religio-premacist, apartheid legal norms to govern his estate, then it is America’s duty, as a land of inclusivity and tolerance, to help effectuate that—so long as that person isn’t white or christian, that is.

And no, America’s years-long attack on that country’s currency and other forms of financial attack do NOT suffice to show that it’s at war with Iran.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"We’re not at war with them. "

Technically, we are.

They seized our embassy, which is considered an act of war.
There has not yet been a peace treaty between us.
QED, we *are* at war with them.

We don't have to be dropping nukes on a daily basis for there to be an active war (as defined under international law).

Remember that we are technically still at war with North Korea -- that was just a ceasefire and not a peace treaty that ended the shooting there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other question here is which version of Iranian law should be respected?

The son was born under the Shah's Iranian law which was in effect before the revolution. Then there was a new set of Iranian laws enacted.

So which version of Iranian laws "count"?

[Frank Drackman]

My favorite subject, Iranian Probate law, I like the part where the disowned son throws dog poop on the father's grave.

[Joe_dallas]

This case seems to be the typical will contest with added attempt of trying to claim ownership in the inheritance under foreign law

Good to see that court applying state law correctly

[ReaderY]

I think it was a mistake for the Maryland Court of Appeals to say they would refuse to apply the family and civil law of much of the world.

This could have been easily decided in a far less sweeping manner. The Court could have said that because Mehmed left a valid will and there is no legitimate basis for contesting it, Iran’s civil law is irrelevant. They could have said that because Mehmed was a US cotizen who died in the US, US civil law applies to fill in any gaps and there is no basis for considering foreign law, with the same result.

They could have easily simply found Iranian law inapplicable to the case and rejected the son’s claims on that basis. There was no need to complicate foreign relations by giving their opinion of what they thought of Iranian law.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Complicate foreign relations with Iran? SRSLY?

[gormadoc]

We don't need to worry as long as the Shah reigns.

[damikesc]

No court in the US should ever use international law in decision-making. Iranian laws are, legitimately, irrelevant here. We are not Iranians and nobody here agreed to abide by those laws.

[Ridgeway]

That is a remarkably dumb statement. Say X and Y enter into a contract in France, explicitly governed by French law. Both subsequently move to the US and get involved in a legal dispute over the contract. Do you really think the court should ignore French law in interpreting the contract?

Similarly, A and B get married in Germany. If they move to the US, are they suddenly living in sin?

[Gasman]

It is probably complicated, and not so nearly ‘remarkably dumb’, as to have labeled as being remarkably dumb.

That is a remarkably dumb statement. Say X and Y enter into a contract in France, explicitly governed by French law. Both subsequently move to the US and get involved in a legal dispute over the contract. Do you really think the court should ignore French law in interpreting the contract?

Similarly, A and B get married in Germany. If they move to the US, are they suddenly living in sin?

Germany is probably quite conservative in marriage law, and likely would not create any issues in statutory acceptance of such. But what would US law do with plural marriage, as seems to be possible in many parts of the world.

Likewise, the French contract might be about something which a US court could adjudicate, or maybe not. What if the contract dispute over the transfer of title to real property in France; how could a US court rule and order performance on transfer of title?

[Bob from Ohio]

" Do you really think the court should ignore French law in interpreting the contract?"

It should just refuse to hear it. French courts are open, the can litigate there.

[Toranth]

Are you suggesting that the moment the boy was born, Mehdi was involuntarily entered into a one-sided contract, unalterable and eternal, with a newborn as the other contracting party?

On the other hand, a US citizen, residing in the US, wrote a will in compliance with the US legal system, to dispose of his property that was in the US. Abraham might have a good argument that any property that was in Iran should be subject to Iranian law. But it seems absurd to suggest that Iranian inheritance laws, that are in direct conflict with US laws, should apply to US citizens and their US property in the US.
Iranian tax laws should not apply, either, and I hope you are not claiming they should.

[Ridgeway]

The remarkably dumb statement was, "No court in the US should ever use international law in decision-making." Foreign and international law issues come up all the time in US courts, completely non-controversially.

That said, this particular case seems obviously correct.

[Toranth]

Ah, apologies then. I misunderstood that you were referring to the entire post.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK Ridgeway —

Say A & B are two gay men who get married in France which (I believe) currently recognizes gay marriage. They then move to the US, in part because of the increasing Muslim influence in France.

Then the Muslims come to power in France (like in Iran) and abolish all gay marriages.

Is their marriage now void?

Under which French laws (if any) should it be judged — those in effect when they got married, or those in effect now?

Do you see the problem?

[Joe_dallas]

ReaderY 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"I think it was a mistake for the Maryland Court of Appeals to say they would refuse to apply the family and civil law of much of the world."

That is a likewise incredibly stupid statement. The decedent was a US citizen and resident of MD.

Just why would Iranian law apply to a US citizen? Kindly provide us a citation in the US constitution or in a US Iranian treaty that would override MD state law and provide that Iranian law is the governing law.

[ReaderY]

Try reading what I said. All you have to do is continue reading past the first sentence.

[gormadoc]

We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran anymore. I do not believe even an MD court could complicate them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why the fixations on Muslims, transgender sorority drama, drag queens, transgender rest rooms, lesbians, transgender parenting disputes, and white grievance?

I would expect a professor at a public university’s law school to have access to professional counseling in this context.