Cher and Mary Bono remain locked in a bitter power struggle over music royalties, even after a judge ruled last May that the singer’s 1978 divorce agreement with ex-husband Sonny Bono was strong enough to fend off Mary’s attempt to recapture his publishing profits.
At a court hearing Monday, a lawyer representing Mary argued that Cher’s right to collect her 50 percent share of composition royalties for hit songs including “I Got U Babe” and “The Beat Goes On” ended for good on July 1, 2022. That was the date Irving Azoff‘s Iconic Artists Group took possession of Cher’s music catalog in a deal that included her partial stake in Sonny’s compositions awarded under the couple’s marriage settlement agreement (MSA). Mary’s lawyer argued that Cher should be locked out of any access to the royalties placed in an escrow account after June 30, 2022. The lawyer said Cher had no standing to pass the money along to Iconic, as requested.
“She’s not entitled to a third party’s royalties. She’s not entitled to Iconic’s royalties. That’s an issue between Iconic and Mary Bono,” lawyer Daniel Schacht argued in a federal courtroom in downtown Los Angeles. “She’s not entitled to the royalties that she doesn’t own.”
In response, Cher’s lawyer argued that Mary’s position was illogical considering the court’s prior ruling protecting Cher’s rights. “Cher sought [the royalties]. She’s entitled to them. And she’s obligated to pay them over to Iconic. Under [opposing] counsel’s view, what happens to them? Mary Bono gets them? That makes absolutely no sense,” lawyer Peter Anderson shot back.
It wasn’t clear Monday what would happen if Mary were to convince the court that Cher has no right to collect the post-June 2022 proceeds and deliver them to Iconic. It was an open question whether Iconic would have to file its own lawsuit. At the hearing Monday, Mary’s lawyer said his client already is working with Iconic.
“They are a business partner of Mary Bono and Sonny Bono’s children. They continue to work together to preserve Sonny’s legacy,” Schacht said. “What happens between Iconic and Mary Bono should be between them and Sonny’s four children.”
A bench trial on the remaining issues in dispute between Mary and Cher has been set for Feb. 26, 2025. In his May ruling, the judge said the escrow account for Cher’s 50 percent stake already had accrued $418,156.82 in composition royalties as of June 30, 2022.
Sonny and Cher married in 1967, recorded together, hosted an Emmy-winning TV show together, welcomed a child, Chaz Bono, and broke up in 1974 (their divorce was finalized the following year). Sonny, who composed his biggest hits including “I Got U Babe” before his marriage with Cher, died in 1998 after a skiing accident. His widow, Mary, assumed control of his estate on behalf of herself and his children. When Sonny’s copyright grants became eligible for termination starting in 2018, Mary sought to invoke the right.
Cher initially sued Mary for $1 million in 2021, saying she was blindsided when Sonny’s widow tried to claw back Cher’s half of Sonny’s composition royalties. In his May order granting summary judgment to Cher, U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt found that Mary’s termination notice had no ability to overturn the divorce judgment. He said Cher’s rights were protected by California state law, which trumped the federal Copyright Act. “[Mary Bono’s] notice of termination cannot affect [Cher’s] contractual right to receive financial compensation in exchange for the release and permanent discharge of any and all claims arising out of her marital relationship with Sonny,” the judge wrote in his May 29 ruling.
In a court filing ahead of the Monday hearing, Cher’s lawyer said it was Mary and Sonny’s children who lack any claim on the escrowed royalties. He said Iconic also sent a letter to all parties in July 2024 “confirming Iconic consents to the award of the escrowed royalties to Cher.”
“Cher’s assignment of the royalties does not preclude her from receiving them, it only obligates her to forward Iconic’s share to Iconic. That is an obligation Cher does not dispute and, moreover, an obligation owed to non-party Iconic, not [Mary]. Permitting [Mary] to receive the post-June 30, 2022 royalties when the court has ruled that [Mary] is not entitled to them … would be extraordinarily unjust and wholly improper,” Anderson wrote.
Mary’s lawyer asked the court to block the admission of Iconic’s July 2024 letter as evidence. The judge declined to bar it Monday as he asked the parties to continue efforts to reach a settlement to avoid the February bench trial.
Leave a Comment