Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd.
167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bing Crosby (d. 1977) married Wilma (d. 1952); Wilma’s will left her community property to a trust for her sons (Wilma’s Trust). Bing’s post-1977 interests (including publicity rights) were later managed by HLC and Bing’s widow Kathryn.
- In 1996 Wilma’s Trust sued HLC and Kathryn for declaratory relief and money relating to income, royalties, and other community-property-derived revenue; the suit was dismissed after a 1999 settlement for about $1.5 million.
- The 1999 settlement broadly released all claims — known and unknown — arising before the agreement, waived Civil Code § 1542, and carved only a narrow exception for "other income derived from works or performances of Bing Crosby during [the marriage]" discovered later; it did not expressly mention the right of publicity.
- In 2008 the Legislature amended Civil Code § 3344.1 to state expressly that the posthumous right of publicity was retroactive and applied to deceased personalities who died before January 1, 1985; the amendment stated it was clarifying existing law and responded to federal decisions questioning retroactivity.
- In 2010 Wilma’s Estate petitioned under Probate Code § 850 claiming Wilma had a community-property interest in Bing’s posthumous right of publicity; the trial court granted the petition. HLC and Kathryn appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the 1999 settlement and release precluded Wilma’s Estate from relitigating its claimed community-property share of Bing’s publicity rights under res judicata; the court treated the 2008 statutory amendment as a clarification, not the creation of a new right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1999 settlement bars Wilma’s Estate’s claim to a share of Bing’s posthumous publicity rights (res judicata / release) | Wilma’s Estate: claim is equitable and distinct; right of publicity did not exist at settlement (pre-2008) so release did not cover it | HLC/Kathryn: 1999 settlement released all claims to community-property-derived income, known and unknown, and Wilma’s Estate was in privity with Wilma’s Trust | Held: Release and res judicata bar the petition; the settlement released Wilma’s Estate’s claim |
| Whether Civil Code § 3344.1 (as amended 2008) created a new right of publicity that postdated the 1999 release | Wilma’s Estate: 2008 amendment created a retroactive right applicable to celebrities who died before 1985, so claim didn’t exist in 1999 | HLC/Kathryn: 2008 amendment merely clarified that § 3344.1 always reached pre-1985 decedents; the right existed for purposes of the 1999 release | Held: The 2008 amendment clarified existing law rather than creating a new right; Wilma’s Estate should have released the claim in 1999 |
| Whether the exception in the 1999 settlement for "other income derived from works or performances" covers the right of publicity | Wilma’s Estate: exception for later-discovered income permits a new claim now | HLC/Kathryn: right of publicity is distinct from income from a work or performance and was not an unknown asset in 1999 | Held: Exception is narrow and does not encompass the right of publicity; speculative extension would vitiate the broad release |
| Whether the Court needed to decide if the right of publicity is community property | Wilma’s Estate: argues right is community property (basis for petition) | HLC/Kathryn: argued right is not community property (statute treats it differently) | Held: Court did not reach substantive community-property question because res judicata disposes of the case; noted § 3344.1 suggests publicity rights may be treated separately by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813 (California Supreme Court) (recognition and limits of the common-law right of publicity)
- Brandwein v. Butler, 218 Cal.App.4th 1485 (Cal. Ct. App.) (contract interpretation: avoid readings that render release provisions superfluous)
- Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Constr., 127 Cal.App.4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App.) (res judicata may not bar claims unknown or not reasonably discoverable in earlier action)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (California Supreme Court) (legislative amendments that promptly clarify statute may be treated as declarations of original meaning)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (California Supreme Court) (statutory construction: literal meaning vs. purpose)
- People v. Cruz, 13 Cal.4th 764 (California Supreme Court) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)