Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Judge May Order Sale of Copyright to Satisfy Alimony Debt
Entertainer Michael Jackson Vested in Celebrated Sculptor Exclusive Right to Control Use and Distribution of His Paintings; Justices Say Court Properly Required Monetization of Asset to Pay Off $2 Million in Obligations
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
Pictured, in an undated photo, is Michael Jackson, left, who, in addition to being an entertainer, was a painter. He gave the copyright on a group of his works to sculptor Brett Livingstone Strong, right. The Court of Appeal for this district has affirmed an order to Strong to assign the copyright to a receiver so that it can be sold to raise cash, to be applied to Strong’s alimony and child support debts. |
There is no legal impediment to a bench officer in a family law court ordering that a copyright be sold to enable the owner, bereft of other assets, to pay off alimony and child support debts, Div. One of the Court of Appeal for this district has declared in a case of first impression which involved paintings by the late entertainer Michael Jackson.
Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild authored the opinion, filed Oct. 29 and certified for publication on Monday. It upholds a Feb. 20, 2025 order by Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Jeffrey W. Korn to renown sculptor/painter/architect Brett Livingstone Strong (also known as Brett-Livingstone Strong), requiring him to assign the copyright he holds on certain of Jackson’s works to a receiver for the purpose of selling it.
Strong owes his estranged wife, Monique Strong, approximately $2 million in skipped spousal and child support payments. The arrears relate to nonpayment that preceded court-termination of support obligations on the part of the husband/father, now 72, who no longer creates artworks.
The copyright was gifted to Brett Strong by Jackson. The two were friends who, in 1989, formed the Jackson-Strong Alliance which made investments in the arts.
Jackson died in 2009. Prints of his paintings are widely sold.
No Precedent
Strong argued on appeal, in a brief by Irvine attorney Bradley A. Patterson of Lawyers Group International:
“There is no statutory or case law authority granting a court the authority to compel the assignment of copyrights held by a judgment debtor. Not one single case in California or the federal courts was found where the forced assignment of a copyright was permitted in an enforcement of judgment proceeding.”
Rothschild wrote:
“Code of Civil Procedure section 695.010, subdivision (a) provides that, absent an exception, ‘all property of the judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment.’…Brett…has not convinced us that any exception for copyrights applies. In addition, although no published California decision has yet held that a court may order the forced assignment of a copyright in particular, cases dating back to the 19th century uphold the forced assignment of other forms of a debtor’s intellectual property to satisfy a creditor’s judgment.”
The presiding justice pointed to an 1881 California Supreme Court decision in Pacific Bank v. Robinson. There, a three-judge panel affirmed a order that a receiver be appointed to sell a patent “and apply the proceeds in satisfaction of a judgment which the plaintiff had recovered against the defendant in July, 1879.”
Copyrights, Patents
Strong protested in his opening brief:
“While the forced assignment of patents is expressly permitted at law, there is no corollary authority for the forced assignment of copyrights.”
He insisted that copyrights and patents “are two entirely different forms of intellectual property-both factually and at law.”
Rothschild responded that Strong failed to explain how any differences between copyrights and patents “require different treatment” of them “in the present case,” declaring:
“Rather, the rationale animating the decisions involving patents—namely, that a debtor should not be permitted to avoid creditors by sitting on intellectual property rights that could be generating revenue—applies with equal force to copyrights.”
Intentional Delay Asserted
Attorney Robert M. Ross of the Encino firm of Klass Helman, representing Monica strong, contended in the respondent’s brief that “[t]his appeal was brought solely to delay the enforcement of a judgment for payment of court ordered family support.”
Div. One acted with speed in resolving the appeal. The notice of appeal was filed April 30; the case was fully briefed as of Sept. 16; oral argument having been waived, the case was submitted on Oct, 21 and a decision was rendered eight days later.
The case is In re Marriage of Strong, 2025 S.O.S. 3385.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company