A Maryland appeals court has ordered a new trial in a major legal dispute between three sisters over their late father’s $3.2 million trust fund. The court found that trial judges had wrongly blocked important handwriting evidence from being presented. In an opinion issued in October 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland overturned an earlier ruling that had given one daughter sole control of the estate. The appeals court found that mistakes in the legal process had prevented the other two sisters from having a fair chance to challenge their father’s estate documents. The dispute involves the estate of an elderly father who died at the age of 95, leaving behind a trust worth several million dollars.
Disputed trust and handwritten notes
The legal dispute began after the father’s death, when two of his daughters discovered that his main estate planning document, the S.K. Amini Trust of Maryland, named their third sister as the only main beneficiary and trustee. While looking through family records, the two excluded sisters found documents containing handwritten notes in Farsi, the modern Persian language spoken in Iran. One of the sisters recognised the handwriting on an important Farsi note and claimed it belonged not to their father, but to the sister who had been named the only beneficiary. A certified English translation of the Farsi note was presented during the trial. It was used to support claims that the favoured daughter had improperly influenced their elderly father or had directly helped control his estate plans while managing his personal and medical affairs. The two sisters later filed a lawsuit. They accused their sibling of using undue influence and wrongfully interfering with their expected inheritance. They also asked the court to cancel the trust and divide the estate equally among all three daughters.
Procedural missteps and expert evidence
The main issue in the appeals court’s decision was the trial judge’s refusal to allow a qualified handwriting expert hired by the two challenging sisters to testify. During the original circuit court proceedings, the judge stopped the expert from giving evidence about whether the Farsi handwriting was genuine. The judge based this decision on missed discovery deadlines and court scheduling rules. However, the Appellate Court of Maryland found that the lower court had made a serious error by excluding the handwriting expert. This was especially concerning because the judge had allowed more flexibility with the court schedule for the main legal witness supporting the sister defending the trust. According to court filings, the lawyer who prepared the trust documents, Kooresh Sobhani, was allowed to give evidence remotely despite earlier objections and legal requests to prevent it. Sobhani speaks both English and Farsi fluently. He told the court that he communicated with the father in both languages and said the elderly man was alert, mentally capable, and free from pressure or improper influence when he signed the trust documents. The appeals court found that blocking the handwriting expert’s testimony seriously harmed the two sisters’ ability to support their claims of wrongful interference and undue influence.
Burden of proof and legal standards
Along with reviewing the evidence, the appeals court also looked at the legal rules for claims involving intentional interference with an expected inheritance under Maryland law. The judges explained the difference between the legal standards used in general civil cases and the stronger level of proof needed to establish undue influence. Writing for the appeals panel, the court explained that ordinary claims involving financial interference usually require a preponderance of the evidence. This means showing that a claim is more likely to be true than not. However, claims that someone wrongly interfered with an inheritance through undue influence require clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. The court concluded that the circuit court had made conflicting decisions about legal procedures. These decisions limited the sisters’ ability to meet the required standard of proof. As a result, the original judgment could not remain in place.
Case remanded for fresh proceedings
The appeals court officially cancelled the circuit court’s judgment and sent the case back to the local trial court for a completely new trial. The decision reopens the dispute over the $3.2 million trust. It gives all three sisters another opportunity to present their evidence. This includes the disputed Farsi notes, expert handwriting analysis, and witness testimony about what their late father truly wanted for his estate. No official date has yet been announced for the new trial in the Maryland circuit court.
