How Do Laws Define “Family”? A Comparative Look at Iran and the United States

Family is one of the most fundamental units of any society. But how we define “family” can vary significantly depending on the legal and cultural context. While some legal systems rely on religious and traditional foundations, others have adapted to modern realities with broader, more flexible definitions.

This article offers a comparative view of how Iran and the United States define family in their legal systems and what that means in practice.

Family in Iranian Law: Rooted in Religion and Tradition

In Iran, the concept of family is closely aligned with Islamic jurisprudence and traditional norms. The Iranian Civil Code provides a clear and narrow definition of family:

• A family must be formed through a lawful (shar’i) marriage between a man and a woman.

• Only legitimate children those born within wedlock are fully protected by law.

• Adopted children receive certain support rights but lack full inheritance or kinship status.

• Unmarried partnerships or cohabitation are not legally recognized as family.

This model emphasizes the importance of legal and religious structure in defining and protecting familial relationships.

Family in U.S. Law: Inclusive and Evolving

In contrast, U.S. law has evolved to recognize a wide range of family types. Legal definitions vary by state, but many U.S. jurisdictions include:

• Married couples, including same-sex couples

• Common-law partnerships (in some states)

• Biological, adopted, stepchildren, and foster children

• Extended relatives such as grandparents, siblings, or even unrelated caregivers acting in a parental role

This flexible approach aims to reflect social realities and offer legal protection to non-traditional families.

Legal Implications of These Differences

1. Rights and Benefits
Iran grants rights like inheritance, insurance, and financial support only to members of a legally and religiously defined family. In the U.S., access to such benefits may depend more on the role a person plays in the household, not just their biological or legal status.

2. Legal Standing
In the U.S., a caregiver without biological ties can request custody or visitation rights. Iranian law, by contrast, limits such rights to legal parents or state-appointed guardians.

3. Recognition of Diverse Families
U.S. law increasingly acknowledges and protects single-parent homes, blended families, and non-marital partnerships. Iranian law remains firmly rooted in the traditional nuclear family model.

Conclusion:

The definition of “family” in law reflects much more than legal logic it tells us how a society values relationships, tradition, and inclusion.

• Iranian law prioritizes formal, religiously sanctioned family ties, maintaining a traditional and structured approach.

• American law is more dynamic, adapting to social changes and offering legal recognition to a wider variety of domestic relationships.

Both legal systems continue to face a shared challenge: how to balance cultural identity with the diverse realities of modern family life.

Court-Appointed Asset Supervisors in Iran and the U.S.: Understanding the Role of a Court Trustee

Introduction In both Iranian and American legal systems, there are mechanisms to safeguard property or manage the affairs of individuals who are temporarily or permanently unable to act on their own. In Iran, one such mechanism is the appointment of a court trustee—a neutral and trusted individual assigned by the court to oversee or preserve someone’s property. In the United States, while there may not be an exact equivalent, similar functions are carried out by court-appointed conservators, trustees, or custodians depending on the context. This blog explores the concept of the court trustee in Iranian law and compares it to similar legal tools used in the U.S.

1. Definition and Purpose of a Court Trustee in Iran, a court trustee is a court-appointed individual tasked with safeguarding property or ensuring that legal and financial matters are managed in the interest of the rightful owner. The appointment usually arises in situations where:

• There is no legal guardian or executor,

• The guardian’s conduct is questionable,

• An inheritance is in limbo,

• Or a person is temporarily unable to manage their affairs.

The main goal is to prevent misuse, loss, or damage to assets.

In the U.S., while the exact title “court trustee” does not exist, similar roles are played by temporary conservators, estate custodians, or special administrators appointed by probate courts. These individuals also have fiduciary duties to protect the estate or interests of a vulnerable party.

2. Scope of Authority and Duties in Iran, a court trustee’s authority is limited to the tasks specified in the court’s order. These often include:

• Managing or preserving assets,

• Supervising transactions,

• Preventing harm due to negligence or conflict among heirs or stakeholders.

In the U.S., court appointees such as custodians or conservators may be tasked with:

• Paying debts,

• Maintaining real estate,

• Representing the interests of a minor or incapacitated adult,

• Holding property in trust pending full probate or legal resolution.

3. Selection Criteria and Court Oversight in Iran, the court trustee must be a trustworthy, competent, and impartial person. Courts typically prioritize individuals with no stake in the outcome of the case. Their actions are monitored by the court and must comply strictly with the assigned duties.

Similarly, in the U.S., fiduciaries must meet the standards of honesty, neutrality, and competence. Courts require detailed reporting and may demand court approval for significant actions.

4. Termination of Appointment The role of a court trustee in Iran ends when:

• The original issue is resolved (e.g., a guardian is appointed, or a dispute ends),

• The court revokes the order,

• Or the purpose of asset protection is fulfilled.

In the U.S., temporary fiduciary roles also end when:

• The permanent guardian or executor is appointed,

• The legal dispute concludes,

• Or the ward regains capacity or passes away.

Conclusion While Iran’s legal system provides for a unique role under the title of court trustee, the United States also recognizes comparable roles with similar objectives to safeguard interests, ensure fairness, and maintain asset integrity in uncertain or transitional situations. For clients dealing with cross-border estate matters, understanding the scope and limitations of these protective legal figures is essential to effective planning and dispute resolution.

Written by Amin Alemohammad | 1844IranLaw.com

Guardianship and Court Jurisdiction in Iranian and American Law: A Comparative Overview

Introduction Guardianship plays a crucial role in legal systems when an individual is unable to manage their own affairs, either due to minority or incapacity. This blog post provides a comparative look at how guardianship is addressed in Iranian law, especially under the Probate and Personal Status Law, and in the U.S. legal system under state-level guardianship statutes. We will explore court jurisdiction, the process for appointing a guardian, the scope of authority and responsibilities granted, conditions for dismissal, and how guardianship ends.

1. Court Jurisdiction in Iran, the Family Court has jurisdiction over guardianship matters. The competent court is usually the one located in the area of the minor or incapacitated person’s residence, which appoints and supervises guardians.

In the United States, jurisdiction is generally held by Probate or Surrogate Courts, varying by state. These courts handle both the appointment and supervision of guardians, with the laws governed on a state-by-state basis.

2. Appointment of a Guardian in Iran, if no legal guardian exists (such as a father or grandfather), the court appoints a guardian. The process is typically initiated by close relatives or welfare authorities. The court evaluates the prospective guardian’s character, financial reliability, and relationship to the ward.

In the U.S., appointment typically begins with a petition to the court, supported by medical evidence or other proof of incapacity. Priority may be given to family members, but the court's ultimate decision focuses on the best interests of the ward.

3. Powers and Duties Under Iranian law, the guardian manages the ward’s financial and legal affairs but must obtain court approval for major decisions such as selling property or managing large financial transactions.

In the U.S., the scope of authority depends on whether the guardian is appointed over the person, the estate, or both. Guardians must act in the best interest of the ward, file periodic reports with the court, and may need court approval for financial activities.

4. Removal of a Guardian in Iran, the court can remove a guardian for reasons including negligence, dishonesty, or abuse of authority.

In the U.S., guardians can be removed for similar causes, including failure to fulfill reporting duties, financial mismanagement, or at the request of the ward or their family if circumstances warrant a change.

5. Termination of Guardianship in Iran, guardianship ends when the minor reaches legal age, regains mental capacity, or passes away. The court may also terminate guardianship if the original reasons for it no longer apply.

In the U.S., guardianship similarly ends upon the ward's death, restoration of capacity, or a court order that lifts the guardianship.

Conclusion Both Iranian and American legal systems aim to protect individuals unable to manage their own affairs by appointing guardians. While there are procedural and jurisdictional differences, the core principles safeguarding the ward’s rights and interests remain consistent. For Iranians living abroad or those with family members in both jurisdictions, understanding these distinctions is essential for navigating cross-border family law matters.

Written by Amin Alemohammad | 1844IranLaw.com

Minority Shareholder Rights in Close Corporations: A Comparative Analysis with Iranian Law

Introduction Close corporations, typically owned by a few shareholders and not publicly traded, operate in an environment shaped by personal trust and informal expectations. In the U.S., courts have developed equitable doctrines to protect minority shareholders from exclusion and abuse by majority shareholders. In contrast, Iranian commercial law, while offering general shareholder protections, lacks a robust framework for minority safeguards in closely held corporations. This blog explores key doctrines protecting minority rights and offers a comparative analysis with Iranian corporate law.

1. Fiduciary Duties in Close Corporations in the U.S., courts often treat shareholder relationships in close corporations similarly to partnerships, requiring all shareholders especially those with control to act in good faith and with loyalty toward each other.

• Minority shareholders must not be unfairly excluded from management or deprived of economic benefits such as dividends.

Iranian comparison: In Iran, fiduciary duties between shareholders are not formally recognized in statutory law. The Commercial Code focuses primarily on the rights and obligations of the board of directors and general meetings. Shareholders are generally seen as passive investors, and there is no legal mechanism to hold majority shareholders accountable for abuse of power unless fraud or criminal conduct can be proven. This leaves minority shareholders vulnerable to exclusion or unfair treatment with limited legal recourse.

2. Protecting Reasonable Expectations Minority shareholders often expect continued participation in company management, employment, or fair economic returns. U.S. courts protect these expectations when their denial appears arbitrary or driven by personal animosity.

Iranian comparison: Iranian law does not recognize “reasonable expectations” as a legal standard. Shareholders’ rights are defined strictly by the articles of association and decisions of the general assembly. If a minority shareholder is excluded from employment or decision-making, they generally cannot claim breach of an implied expectation unless a contractual right is clearly stated.

3. Enforceability of Shareholder Agreements Privately negotiated agreements in close corporations such as those covering voting rights, buy-sell terms, or management roles are enforceable in U.S. courts when clearly drafted and equitable in nature.

Iranian comparison: Shareholder agreements in Iran are often viewed as secondary to the articles of association. Courts may not enforce provisions that conflict with statutory formalities or corporate governance structures. Furthermore, enforcement depends heavily on how explicitly such agreements are incorporated into the company’s governing documents. Informal side agreements often lack legal force.

4. Legal Remedies for Deadlock and Oppression When minority shareholders are locked out of the company or when corporate governance reaches an impasse, U.S. courts may intervene by ordering dissolution, mandating a buyout at fair value, or awarding damages.

Iranian comparison: The Iranian Commercial Code does not address shareholder oppression or governance deadlocks. Dissolution of companies typically requires insolvency, a court order based on specific statutory violations, or a supermajority vote. Minority shareholders have limited avenues to challenge exclusionary practices or force resolution of governance stalemates.

5. Disclosure Obligations in Share Transactions Transparency and full disclosure are key duties in U.S. close corporations, particularly during share buybacks or transfers involving insiders. Failure to disclose material information can result in liability.

Iranian comparison: Iranian law generally lacks disclosure obligations for private company transactions unless the entity is publicly listed under the Securities Market Act. In closely held firms, there is no formal requirement to inform shareholders about company prospects or pending transactions during a buyback, giving controlling shareholders significant informational advantages.

Conclusion The U.S. legal system offers a wide range of equitable protections for minority shareholders in close corporations, with courts willing to enforce fiduciary standards, uphold shareholder agreements, and recognize implied expectations. Iranian corporate law, while structured and codified, lacks the flexibility and judicial discretion necessary to protect minority interests in complex intra-corporate conflicts. Legislative reform in Iran introducing fiduciary duties, clarifying enforceability of shareholder agreements, and providing remedies for oppression would help ensure corporate justice and investor confidence.

Written by Amin Alemohammad | 1844IranLaw.com

Key Principles in U.S. Securities Law: A Comparative Overview with Iranian Regulations

Introduction U.S. securities law is shaped by a combination of statutory frameworks and regulatory enforcement that define the obligations of corporate insiders, board members, and large shareholders. This blog outlines core principles of the U.S. approach to insider trading, director indemnification, and investor protections followed by a comparative overview of Iranian securities and corporate law.

1. Short-Swing Profits and Shareholder Accountability

U.S. Law:

Under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, corporate insiders — including officers, directors, and shareholders owning more than 10% of a company’s stock — must return any profits earned from buying and selling securities within a six-month period. This rule is intended to deter short-term market manipulation and protect ordinary investors.

Iranian Comparison:

While Iranian law prohibits insider trading and manipulative practices under the Securities Market Law, it lacks a direct equivalent to the U.S. short-swing profit rule. The Commercial Code and capital market regulations outline general duties for shareholders but do not specify precise trading timelines or thresholds.

2. Director Indemnification and Legal Costs

U.S. Law:

Many U.S. corporations include provisions in their bylaws or employment contracts that allow advance payment of legal expenses to directors and officers involved in corporate litigation. This indemnification may occur before any final judgment, promoting confidence in leadership roles.

Iranian Comparison:

In Iran, directors generally bear their own legal costs unless specifically authorized by the company’s shareholders or governing documents. Indemnity insurance is not yet a widespread practice, and no formal legal provision guarantees cost reimbursement for directors.

3. Insider Trading Responsibilities and Tippee Liability

U.S. Law:

The U.S. takes an expansive approach to insider trading enforcement. Liability extends beyond corporate insiders to include tippees — individuals who receive and act on confidential information improperly shared. Additionally, under the misappropriation theory, even those without an official company role may face charges if they use confidential information for personal gain.

Iranian Comparison:

Iranian law criminalizes insider trading in general terms but does not yet fully adopt U.S.-style doctrines like tippee liability or misappropriation theory. Enforcement mechanisms are limited, with few high-profile cases reaching courts or resulting in penalties.

4. Derivatives and Investor Protections

U.S. Law:

Investors in derivative instruments like call and put options are protected under anti-fraud provisions if misleading disclosures or omissions affect the value of the underlying securities. The SEC actively enforces violations that distort derivative markets or harm investor interests.

Iranian Comparison:

Iran’s financial markets are still developing infrastructure for derivatives. While regulatory attention is increasing, clear legal protections for derivatives traders remain underdeveloped, and practical enforcement remains minimal.

Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Legal Frameworks

The U.S. securities system offers a detailed and dynamic regulatory model, protecting investors through statutory rules, case law, and active enforcement. In contrast, Iranian securities law emphasizes ethical principles and basic investor safeguards but lacks the granular detail and consistency seen in U.S. practice.

As Iran continues to modernize its financial system, legal reform and stronger enforcement mechanisms could play a key role in attracting investment and boosting market credibility.

At Iranlaw, we help clients navigate complex cross-border legal frameworks, including securities compliance, corporate governance, and international investment laws. Whether you are an investor, board member, or corporate officer, our experienced legal team can provide tailored advice and regulatory insights.

📞 Contact us today for a consultation or more information about compliance with U.S. and Iranian securities regulations.

Written by Amin Alemohammad | 1844IranLaw.com