National Music Museum: America's Shrine to Music v. Johnson
4:14-cv-04113
D.S.D.Jun 2, 2017Background
- The dispute concerns ownership of a Martin D-35 guitar once owned by Elvis Presley; NMM (plaintiff) and Larry Moss (defendant) each claim title based on separate contracts with prior owner Robert Johnson.
- Moss contracted with Johnson on February 12, 2008; NMM contracted with Johnson on February 6, 2013.
- Moss sued Johnson in Tennessee Chancery Court seeking specific performance and related remedies; that court orally ruled Moss had the right to ownership and later issued a written order stating Moss held legal and equitable title relating back to February 12, 2008.
- NMM later sued Johnson and Moss in South Dakota; this federal case proceeded to a bench trial, and the district court held NMM is the legal owner of the Elvis guitar.
- Moss moved under Rules 52(b) and 59 to alter/amend the judgment, amend findings, get a new trial, and other relief, arguing Tennessee’s judgment precluded relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel).
- The district court found the Tennessee court’s title statement was dicta (not necessary to the Tennessee judgment) and denied Moss’s post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee Chancery Court’s statement that Moss holds title (relating back to 2008) preclusively bars this court from deciding title | The Tennessee ruling was not binding here because it was dicta and the title timing was never litigated | Tennessee ruling that Moss holds title relating back to 2008 precludes relitigation of when title passed (res judicata/collateral estoppel) | The Tennessee court’s statement was dicta; res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply, so this court’s ownership ruling stands |
| Whether Moss’s Tennessee claims required a determination of title transfer date | NMM: the Tennessee decision did not actually litigate the title-passage issue; Moss’s claims could be decided without title transfer | Moss: his counterclaims and the Tennessee order established he acquired title as of 2008 | Held that Moss’s Tennessee claims (specific performance, breach, fraud) could be resolved without finding title passed; thus the title timing was not necessary to that judgment |
| Whether factual errors in Tennessee order (e.g., referring to a Gold Top ES-295 Gibson that Johnson never owned) undermine preclusive effect | NMM: factual mistakes show the title determination was not litigated or essential | Moss: omitted | Court viewed the factual error as evidence the title issue was not before the Tennessee court; supports lack of preclusion |
| Whether Moss is entitled to post-trial relief (amend judgment/findings/new trial) | NMM: prior rulings were correct and discretionary relief not warranted | Moss: seeks Rule 52(b)/59 relief to alter findings and judgment based on claimed preclusion and misapplication of law | Court denied all requested relief, finding no clear error or basis to alter its prior rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Coterel v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., 827 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2016) (appellate standard reviewing denial of new trial and evidentiary rulings)
- Burckhard v. BNSF Ry. Co., 837 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court has broad discretion on motions to alter or amend judgment)
- Mullins v. State, 294 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. 2009) (collateral estoppel applies only to issues actually litigated and necessary to the judgment)
- Regions Fin. Corp. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (res judicata does not apply to dicta)
- Brewer v. Jonesboro Police Dep’t, 653 F. App’x 853 (8th Cir. 2016) (post-trial motions under Rule 59(a)(2) reviewed for abuse of discretion)