Opinion ID: 1666794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Identity of the Subject Matter

Text: ¶ 13. The circuit court erroneously found that [t]he Leflore County chancery court determined that the copyright and the right to royalties generated from two photographs of Robert Johnson that are the basis of this cause of action belonged to Claud Johnson. In fact, the chancery court made no finding concerning the copyright and the right to royalties generated from the two photos. The subject matter of the chancery court action was the administration of the Johnson estate, including an heirship proceeding to determine the heirs of Johnson. The claim of ownership of the photos was clearly not litigated during the chancery proceedings. What the chancery court did find in its October 15, 1998, heirship proceeding judgment was that Claud Johnson was the biological son and the sole heir at law of Robert Johnson. Subsequently, when the estate was closed, Paragraph (6) of the Order of Final Discharge, dated March 22, 1999, stated: All contract rights of the estate are hereby declared to be vested in Claud L. Johnson, the biological son and sole heir at law of Robert L. Johnson, Deceased, including but not limited to those documents described in Exhibit A which documents shall be delievered [sic] to said Claud L. Johson [sic] within a reasonable time after the entering of this Order. (Emphasis added). Exhibit A contained the following list: 1. Copies of all income source statements; 2. Copies of all licenses, including but not limited to the mechanical licenses and synchronization licenses; 3. Copies of all statements from record companies; 4. Copies of all past and present contracts entered into on behalf of the estate; 5. Copies of all print agreements; 6. Copies of all royalty statements received, including but not limited to mechanical royalties and artist royalties; 7. Copies of all agreements pertaining to the use and control of the master recordings; 8. Copies of all agreements, including contracts, with Bob Eagle and/or Eagle & Partners; 9. Copies of all sub-publishing agreements; 10. Copies of all statements from the inception of the sub-publishing agreements; 11. Copies of all BMI statements, including but not limited to those pertaining to the writer and publisher rights; Exhibit A does not mention the photographs. There was no court finding regarding the specific contract rights of the estate. There is nothing in the record before us that shows that there has ever been a determination of ownership of the photos. Anderson and Harris claim that they presumed that they were Johnson's only heirs, and because the ownership of the photos was never contested, there was no need for litigation of this matter until October 15, 1998, when Claud was adjudicated to be the sole heir to the Johnson estate. If the photos were the personal property of Thompson, as Anderson claims, and not part of the Johnson estate, then LaVere incorrectly deposited the royalties from the photos into the estate account, and this portion of royalties would not have passed to Claud as heir to the estate. Because the ownership of the photos and copyrights thereto was not the subject matter of the chancery action, there is no identity of subject matter between the actions. ¶ 14. Additionally, Anderson claims, and there is evidence in the record to support her claim, that each time she attempted to introduce evidence concerning the contract between Thompson and LaVere and ownership of the photographs, the opposing side objected and the chancellor agreed that this was an issue for another time in a different forum. Thus Anderson was not allowed to raise the issue of ownership of the photos or validity of the contract between Thompson and LaVere. Excerpts from the trial to determine heirship of Robert Johnson on October 14, 1998, provide a good example of this: Direct Examination of Ms. Anderson ... BY MR. NEVAS: Q Were you aware of any efforts that any member of the family made in connection with Robert Johnson and his music? A Yes, I am, at a later time. Q And when was that, Mrs. Anderson? A That was around 1972, I believe. Q And who undertook those efforts? A My sister Carrie Q And so you know why? A Well, someone came to see her in reference to brother Robert's music. They told her they wished to exploit the music. BY MR. JIM KITCHENS: (Attorney for Claud Johnson) Your Honor, I'm going to interpose an objection at this point. I believe we're getting kind of far afield and this would be irrelevant. BY THE COURT: What does this have to do with the issue at hand? BY MR. NEVAS: It has to do with the connection between Carrie Thompson and Robert Johnson BY THE COURT: Well, I think we've already resolved that haven't we? I don't see that that has a whole lot of bearing on whether Claud is Robert Johnson's child or not. (Emphasis added). ¶ 15. The following day, at the close of the hearing, the chancellor gave his opinion, stating in pertinent part: The [sole and only] question is, is whether or not the evidence presented by Claud Johnson is sufficiently credible, is sufficiently clear, and sufficiently convincing enough for this court to determine whether or not he, in fact, is the child of Robert Johnson, the blues singer, the one whose picture we have in evidence. ¶ 16. Furthermore, in determining that res judicata bars this claim, the circuit court stated that Anderson and Harris could have petitioned the chancery court to make a determination that the copyrights to the photographs were rightfully theirs. As stated above, the doctrine of res judicata may act to preclude the litigation of a claim that could have been brought only if the four identities are present. Pray v. Hewitt, 254 Miss. 20, 179 So.2d 842 (1965); Golden v. Golden, 246 Miss. 562, 151 So.2d 598 (1963). Not only are the four identities not present in this case, but if Anderson tried, but was not allowed to make her claim of ownership, res judicata cannot bar litigation of the claim in the present action.