Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D. student of private law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’I University, Tehran, Iran

3 Ph.D. student of private law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Making a will by the testator and accepting or disclaiming it by the donee and executor requires the intention. As a rule, the main element of any juridical act (whether a contract or a unilateral juridical act) is the intention. As one of the types of juridical acts, the testamentary (will) is not exempted from this rule. Indeed, as one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: “Intention being the life and soul of a will, it can hardly be imagined, I presume, that a man can make a will without intending to do so, or give by it more than he means to give".
In Iranian law, when discussing the intention of individuals in a testamentary (will), it is important to take care of the intention of the testator, donee, and executor. Thus, in the will, on the one hand, the testator wants to bring his wish to the fore to manage the affairs and property after death. On the other hand, the donee or executor (of course with exceptions) can disclaim the will for various reasons. Therefore, the principle of sovereignty of the intention in the will can be examined from the angles above.
American law is almost similar to Iranian law. In this legal system, when the principle of sovereignty of intention is considered from the perspective of the testator, the term "Freedom of Disposition" is used. On the contrary, when the topic under discussion is related to accepting or disclaiming the will by the donee, the term "Freedom of Inheritance" is used. Based on this, the principle of sovereignty of the testator's intention means the testator is a person who decides which property to transfer to whom and to what extent. The principle of sovereignty of the donee's intention also means the testator's authority to accept or at least disclaim the will. In this legal system, the "Testamentary Trust" is also used to fulfill the testamentary. In the testamentary trust, the testator accommodates the desired property to a person named "Trustee" so that he can manage the said property as a "Fiduciary" in favor of the "Beneficiary".
"Principle of Sovereignty of the Intention" has now created these questions in the authors' minds: First, what is the basis of the principle of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the donee, and the executor? Second, can we imagine limitations for the intention of the testator, donee, and executor? If the answer is “Yes”, what are the examples of these limitations?
In this article, by a comparative study of Imamia Jurisprudence, Iranian and American Law, an attempt is made to answer the above questions with a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources. The reason for adapting this issue to American law can be summed up in two ways: First, in the legal system of this country, issues related to wills (especially the sovereignty of the will) are very important and have been examined in detail by scholars in the field of inheritance and wills. Second, Iranian jurists consider Imamia Jurisprudence when examining the challenges raised in the realm of wills, contrary to the approach that exists in the law of contracts and civil liability. Although this approach seems to be acceptable and good considering the Iranian civil law based on Islamic jurisprudence, but it cannot stop the curious mind from comparing the will rights with the western legal systems.
 In the end, after studying the history of the mentioned principle, the following results are obtained: First, the testator's natural right, his motivation, securing the interests of the testator, setting the behavior of potential heirs, and duty to social cooperation are considered the basis of the testator's will. Also, preserving the independence of the donee and executor, the cooperation of the donee in managing the distribution of the estate, and ensuring the interests of the testator are the basis of the sovereignty of the testator's will. Second, while the formalities of making a will, the necessary heirs, the mandatory rules, and religion are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the formalities of accepting or disclaiming the will and killing the testator by the donee are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the donee and executor.

Keywords

Main Subjects

 
Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Bender, A. S., “Disclaimer Law: A Call for Statutory Reform”, U. Ill. L. Rev., (3), 2001, pp. 887-910.
Beyer, G. W., & Hargrove, C. G., “Digital Wills: Has the Time Come for Wills to Join the Digital Revolution”, Ohio NUL Rev., 33 (3), 2007, pp. 865-902.
Bruce, H. Mann, “Formalities and Formalism in the Uniform Probate Code”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142 (3), 1994, pp. 1033-1062.
Ellsworth, J. B., “On Disclaimers: Let's Renounce IRC Section 2518”, Vill. L. Rev., 38 (3), 1993, pp. 693-758.
Emerson, K. Y., & Bennardo, K., “Unleashing Pets from Dead-Hand Control”, Nev. LJ, 22 (1), 2021, pp. 349-378.
Glover, M., “A Social Welfare Theory of Inheritance Regulation”, Utah L. Rev., (2), 2018, pp. 411-455.
Glover, M., “A Taxonomy of Testamentary Intent”. Geo. Mason L. Rev., 23 (3), 2015, pp. 569-616.
Glover, M., “Freedom of Inheritance”, Utah L. Rev., 2, 2017, pp. 283-330.
Glover, M., “Restraining Live Hand Control of Inheritance”, Md. L. Rev., 79 (2), pp. 325-373.
Hall, D. D. G., The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
Hirsch, A. J., & Wang, W. K., “A Qualitative Theory of the Dead Hand”, Ind. LJ, 68 (1), 1992, pp. 1-58.
Hirsch, A. J., “Freedom of Testation/Freedom of Contract”, Minn. L. Rev., 95, 2010, pp. 2180-2253.
Hirsch, A. J., “Revisions in Need of Revising: The Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act”, Fla. St. UL Rev., 29 (1), 2001, pp. 109-187.
Horton, D., “Revoking Wills”, Notre Dame L. Rev., 97 (2), 2021, pp. 563-618.
Johnson, I. D., “There's a Will, but No Way-Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Testamentary Freedom and What Can (Should) We Do to Restore It”, Est. Plan. & Cmty. Prop. LJ, 4, 2011, pp. 105-126.
Kelly, D. B., “Restricting Testamentary Freedom: Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Justifications”, Fordham L. Rev., 82, 2013, pp. 1125-1185.
Leslie, M. B., “Myth of Testamentary Freedom”, The. Ariz. L. Rev., 38, 1996, pp. 235-290.
Lindgren, J., “The Fall of Formalism”. Alb. L. Rev., 55, 1991, pp. 235-290.
McCouch, G., “Will Substitutes Under the Revised Uniform Probate Code”, Brook. L. Rev., 58, 1992, pp. 1123-1194.
Monopoli, A., “Toward Equality: Non-marital Children and the Uniform Probate Code”, U. Mich. JL Reform, 45, 2011, pp. 995-1035.
Osmanaj, E., “Restriction of Testamentary Freedom”. Comparative Aspects: Perspectives of Law and Public Administration, 10 (1), 2021, pp. 95-101.
Reid, K. G., de Waal, M. J., & Zimmermann, R., Comparative Succession Law: Testamentary Formalities, Vol. 1, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Reid, K. G., de Waal, M. J., & Zimmermann, R., Comparative Succession Law: Mandatory Family Protection, Vol. 3, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
Rosenbloum, M., “Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death: The Conflict Between Copyright Law and Estates Law”, J. Intell. Prop. L., 4 (1), 1996, pp. 163-202.
Shavell, S., Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law, (London: Harvard University Press, 2004).
Sitkoff, R. H., & Dukeminier, J., Wills, Trusts, and Estates, (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2017).
Sitkoff, R. H., “Freedom of Disposition in American Succession Law”, Harvard Public Law Working Paper, 2018, p. 518, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3197342.
Taite: C., “Freedom of Disposition v. Duty of Support: What's a Child Worth”, Wis. L. Rev., 2019, pp. 325-348.
Tate, J. C., “Caregiving and the Case for Testamentary Freedom”, UC Davis L. Rev., 42, 2008, pp. 129-192.
Translated References into English
Abasloo, Bakhtiar & Bahramy, Ehsan, “Traditional Requirements in Executing a Will and Their Place in the Electronic Will; A Comparative Study of Iranian and American Law”, Comparative Law Review, 13 (2), (2022). [In Persian]
Abdo Borujerdi, Mohammad, The generalities of Islamic law, (Tehran: Tehran University, 2016). [In Persian]
Amid Zanjani, Abbas Ali, Ayat-al-Ahkam (Criminal-Civil), (Tehran: Majd, 2016). [In Persian]
Amid Zanjani, Abbas Ali, The Rules of Islamic Jurisprudence, Volume I, (Tehran: Samt, 2018). [In Persian]
Amid, Mousa, Civil Law of Iran-second section (Gift-Will-Inheritance), (Tehran: Iran automatic printing house, 1942). [In Persian]
Ansarian, Hossein, Tafsir Hakim, Volume V, (Qom: Dar-al-Erfan, 2015). [In Persian]
Borujerdi, Seyyed Hossein, Manabe Feqh Shi-e (translated by: Esmaeil Tabar, Ahmad, Hosseini, Seyyed Ahmadreza & Mohuri, Mohammad Hossein), Volume XLIX, (Tehran: Farhang Sabz, 2007). [In Persian]
Emami, Seyyed Hasan, Civil Law, Volume III, (Tehran: Eslamiye, 2015). [In Persian]
Gholami, Maliheh; Soltani, Abbasali & Naseri Moqaddam, Husayn, “An Analysis of the Role of Assent in Commitment Bequest”, Fiqh and Usul, 49 (2), (2017). [In Persian]
Gorji, Abolghasem, Ayat-al-Ahkam (Civil & Criminal), (Tehran: Mizan, 2016). [In Persian]
Haeri Shahbaq, Seyyed Ali, Description of civil law, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2017). [In Persian]
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Al-Fareq: General Encyclopedia of Law, Volume V, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2012). [In Persian]
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Annotated Civil Code of Iran, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2012). [In Persian]
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Civil Law: Will, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2011). [In Persian]
Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Philosophy of Civil Law: General Elements of Contracts, Volume I, (Tehran: Ganj Danesh, 2014). [In Persian]
Javadi Amoli, Abdollahi, Tasnim: Interpretation of the Holy Quran, Volume VIII, (Qom: Esra, 2011). [In Persian]
Katouzian, Naser, Civil law in the current legal order, (Tehran: Mizan, 2016). [In Persian]
Katouzian, Naser, Introductory course of civil rights: lessons of Pre-Emption, will, inheritance, (Tehran: Mizan, 2016).
Katouzian, Naser, Will in the Civil Law of Iran, (Teharn: Ganj Danesh, 2018).
Makarem Shirazi, Naser, Tafsir Nemune, Volume I, (Tehran: Dar-al-Kotob-al-Eslamiye, 1992).
Mirshekari, Abbas & Azadbakht, Shobeir, “Comparative Study on Validity of Electronic Will in American and Iranian law”, Modern Technologies Law, 4 (7), (2023). [In Persian]
Mirshekari, Abbas., Bahramy, Ehsan & Azadbakht, Shobeir, “Formalities of Withdrawal of a Will and the Ways to Avoid Them under American Law; A Reflection on Iranian Law”, The Journal of Islamic Law Research, 24 (1), (2023). [In Persian]
Mirshekari, Abbas; Bahramy, Ehsan & Pishnamaz, Sayyed Amin, “Strict Compliance Requirement in a Will: A Comparative Study of Iranian and American Law”, Jurisprudence and Islamic Law, 13 (29), (2022). [In Persian]
Mohaqeq Damamd, Seyyed Mostafa, Will: Jurisprudence and legal analysis, (Tehran: Olum Eslami, 2015). [In Persian]
Moslehi Araghi, Ali Hossein, Les Droits de Succession, (Tehran: Samt, 2017). [In Persian]
Qaraati, Mohsen, Tafsir Noor, Volume I, (Tehran: The cultural center of lessons from the Quran, 2009). [In Persian]
Qasemzadeh, Seyyed Morteza, Civil Law: Pre-Emption, Will & Inheritance, (Tehran: Dadgostar, 2015). [In Persian]
Qasemzadeh, Seyyed Morteza; Rahpeyk, Hasan & Kiyaei, Abdollah, Interpretation of civil law: Documents, Judgments and Legal Views, (Tehran: Samt, 2016). [In Persian]
Rezaei Nezhad, Homayoun, Civil Law: Phylosophy of Contractual Liability, (Tehran: Sahami Enteshar, 2020). [In Persian]
Roshan, Mohammad, A comparative study of inheritance barriers, (Tehran: Majd, 2013). [In Persian]
Safaei, Seyyed Hossein & Shabani Kandesari, Hadi, Civil Law: Will, Succession, Pre-Emption, (Tehran: Sahami Enteshar co., 2018). [In Persian]