An inheritance dispute over nearly $3.2 million in US assets left by an Iranian shipping businessman has returned to court after a Maryland appeals court overturned a jury’s decision in favour of his eldest daughter. The case centres on whether Seyedkazem Amini-Nejad, who died in 2023 at the age of 95, understood the estate documents that left his American assets exclusively to one of his three daughters. In a ruling dated October 28, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland said the jury had been given an incorrect legal standard when considering the younger daughters’ claim that their sister deliberately interfered with their expected inheritance.Amini-Nejad had spent most of his life in Iran, where he co-owned a shipping company with two business partners. He travelled to the United States to visit his family and receive medical treatment. All three of his daughters lived in the US, and the eldest, Ellahe Amini-Nejad, had been involved in managing his finances and accompanying him to medical and legal appointments during his visits.The dispute arose from estate-planning documents signed during a visit to the US in March 2019. On March 22 that year, Amini-Nejad signed a will stating that his cash, liquid assets, stocks, shares, bank accounts, life insurance policies and retirement benefits should go to Ellahe. She was also named the executor and personal representative of the will. A trust was established soon afterwards, with Ellahe named as its sole trustee and beneficiary. Court records show that $3,199,794 was transferred into the trust. The documents did not name his younger daughters, Elham and Eman, as beneficiaries.The arrangements became contentious after Amini-Nejad died on May 23, 2023. The younger sisters said they had not been informed about the will or trust and discovered the documents only after travelling to Iran for their father’s funeral. While searching through his belongings at the family home in Tehran, they found a folder containing estate papers, bank documents and handwritten notes in Farsi.The notes became an important part of their challenge. Elham testified that she was certain the handwriting on a note attached to the will belonged to her eldest sister. The younger daughters argued that their father spoke limited English and could not have adequately understood the English-language legal documents he had signed. They also maintained that he had wanted his three daughters to remain united and share his estate.The sisters filed a lawsuit in Maryland in January 2024, alleging fraud, undue influence, intentional interference with their expected inheritance and financial exploitation. They sought to have the trust invalidated and compensation for the assets they believed had been wrongfully diverted.During the trial, the eldest daughter disputed the allegations and maintained that her father had independently chosen how to distribute his American assets. The attorney who prepared the estate documents testified that he communicated with Amini-Nejad in both Farsi and English and believed his client understood the arrangements and was acting voluntarily. The court also heard that all three daughters had accompanied their father to appointments during his visits to the US.The younger sisters pointed to another decision their father had made: in August 2021, he transferred the deed of the family home in Tehran to all three daughters. They argued that this was consistent with his wish to treat them equally. They also questioned why the will and trust had not been disclosed to them while their father was alive.After a four-day trial in Howard County Circuit Court, the jury found that Elham and Eman had a reasonable expectation of receiving an inheritance. However, it ruled in favour of Ellahe on their claim of intentional interference, finding that they had not established that she had engaged in wrongful conduct with the purpose of preventing them from receiving the inheritance. The crucial issue was the standard of proof the jury had been instructed to apply. The trial judge had told jurors that the younger sisters needed to establish their claim through “clear and convincing evidence”, a relatively demanding standard used in certain civil cases, including fraud claims.The sisters challenged that instruction on appeal, arguing that the court should instead have applied the lower standard of “preponderance of the evidence”. Under this standard, a claim is established when the evidence makes it more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. The Appellate Court of Maryland agreed. In its October 28 opinion, written by Judge Kathryn Graeff, the court said the correct standard for intentional interference with an expected inheritance was preponderance of the evidence. It reasoned that the claim was closely related to other civil claims involving interference with economic interests, for which the lower standard applies.The court also referred to the legal framework adopted when Maryland first recognised intentional interference with an inheritance as a civil claim in 2020. That earlier decision had not specified the burden of proof. The appeals court said the standard should be consistent with the principles governing interference with economic expectations.It further explained that the incorrect instruction could have affected the jury’s decision. Since jurors had been asked to apply a higher standard than the law required, the appeals court said it could not determine whether they might have reached a different conclusion under the correct test. It therefore reversed the judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings.The ruling does not establish that Ellahe committed fraud, manipulated her father or unlawfully took the money. Nor does it automatically award any portion of the trust to the younger sisters. Instead, it gives them another opportunity to pursue their inheritance-interference claim under the correct legal standard. The court did not need to decide other issues raised in the appeal, including disputes concerning expert handwriting evidence and testimony from the lawyer who drafted the trust.The case also highlights a legal distinction between challenging the validity of estate documents and claiming that someone deliberately interfered with an expected inheritance. While the younger sisters raised allegations of fraud and undue influence, the appellate decision focused on the standard of proof applicable to the interference claim. The next proceedings will determine whether the younger daughters can establish their allegations under the standard clarified by the appeals court.