Analysis of Legal and Judicial Trends in the Transfer of Ownership and Transactions in Immovable Property in Iran and the United States

Abstract

The transfer of ownership in immovable property constitutes one of the most significant areas of private law because it directly involves contractual validity, proprietary effects, registration, third-party rights, and judicial protection. This study comparatively examines the legal and judicial trends governing the transfer of ownership and real-estate transactions in Iran and the United States. The main objective is to identify the principal similarities and differences between the two systems, particularly regarding the relationship between contract and transfer, the role of registration or recording, the legal status of formal and informal instruments, the protection of good-faith third parties, and the judicial resolution of competing claims. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical and comparative method and focuses specifically on the legal mechanisms governing conveyance rather than on the broader theoretical concept of property ownership. The findings indicate that Iranian law has traditionally emphasized the proprietary effects of valid contracts, while the growing importance of official registration has created an increasingly formalized framework for securing ownership and protecting third parties. By contrast, the American system more clearly distinguishes among the contract for sale, the deed transferring legal title, and the recording process affecting priority and notice. Judicial disputes in both systems commonly arise from incomplete formalization, conflicting transfers, defective documents, unauthorized transactions, and inconsistencies between private agreements and public records. The comparative analysis shows that greater legal certainty can be achieved by clearly distinguishing contractual enforceability, proprietary transfer, opposability to third parties, and priority among competing interests. The study concludes that the Iranian system can benefit from more precise rules concerning the legal effects of registration, stronger protection of good-faith reliance on public records, clearer treatment of private instruments, and greater consistency in judicial approaches to real-estate transactions.