Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyaffidavitprobatewill

attorneyprobatewilldivorceappellant

Related Cases

Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,016, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,231

Facts

Marilyn Monroe executed her Last Will and Testament in New York, naming a New York attorney as executor. After her death in California, her estate was probated in New York, where her executor consistently represented that she was domiciled in New York to avoid California estate taxes. The estate's representations were supported by affidavits from Monroe's friends and associates, indicating her intent to return to New York. The LLC claiming Monroe's right of publicity was formed years later, and the case arose from conflicting claims regarding the ownership of that right.

Following her divorce from Arthur Miller, while in New York City, Marilyn Monroe executed her Last Will and Testament on January 14, 1961. She named New York attorney Aaron Frosch executor. She then traveled to California in the spring of 1961, where she first stayed in a hotel, then moved to a rental apartment, and again moved into a home in Brentwood which she purchased in 1962.

Issue

Did the LLC inherit Marilyn Monroe's right of publicity through her will, and was it judicially estopped from asserting that Monroe was domiciled in California at the time of her death?

The issue of appellants' rights turns on whether Monroe was domiciled in California or New York at the time of her death.

Rule

Judicial estoppel applies when a party's later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position, and it has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that earlier position.

Judicial estoppel applies when a party's later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.

Analysis

The court found that the LLC was judicially estopped from claiming Monroe's domicile was in California because her estate had consistently represented her domicile as New York in various legal proceedings. This misrepresentation was deemed a knowing misrepresentation, which is a factor in the judicial estoppel analysis. The court concluded that the LLC could not assert a right of publicity under California law because Monroe's right did not exist at the time of her death.

We conclude that because Monroe's executors consistently represented during the probate proceedings and elsewhere that she was domiciled in New York at her death to avoid payment of California estate taxes, among other things, appellants are judicially estopped from asserting California's posthumous right of publicity.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the LLC did not own Monroe's right of publicity, as it was not created until after her death and could not pass through her will.

We therefore affirm the district court's order so holding.

Who won?

The photographer prevailed in the case because the court found that the LLC was judicially estopped from claiming Monroe's right of publicity based on prior representations made by her estate.

The court concluded that, at the time of Monroe's death in 1962, the states of New York, California and Indiana did not recognize 'a descendable, posthumous right of publicity.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mathewson v. Primeau, 64 Wash.2d 929, 395 P.2d 183

In re Estate of Smith, 685 So.2d 1206, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S332

In re Brown’s Estate, 22 Cal.App.2d 480, 71 P.2d 345

Whistler v. Hyder, 129 Or.App. 344, 879 P.2d 214

League of Oregon Cities v. State, 334 Or. 645, 56 P.3d 892