Cher racked up $1M in legal bills despite winning royalties lawsuit against Sonny Bono’s wife Mary Bono |


Cher still on the hook for $1M in legal bills despite winning royalty lawsuit against Sonny Bono's wife Mary Bono
A federal court rejected Cher’s request for Mary Bono to pay attorney fees. (Image source: Instagram)

Cher, affectionately known as the “Goddess of Pop,” must pay $1 million in legal fees in the lawsuit. sonny bono‘s widow, Mary Bono. In May 2024, the 80-year-old won a legal battle over unpaid royalties, but the court dismissed her bill for legal fees. After Marie stopped paying Cher, the singer hired top lawyers to secure a win – but now, she has to pay up.Here’s a closer look at the legal conflict between Cher, Sonny Bono and Mary Bono.

Cher and Sonny Bono: a hit collaboration

After Cher became famous in the 1960s, he collaborated with Sonny Bono. As part of their 1978 divorce settlement, the two officially split 50% of royalties. However, the conflict began in 2021 when Cher claimed that Mary Bono was reportedly trying to end the deal between her and Sonny. The lawsuit allegedly alleges that Bono attempted to use “the completely inapplicable statutory termination provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act” to cancel the copyright deal.

Cher and Mary Bono: Royalty Lawsuit

In 2024, Mary Bono was ordered to pay Cher more than $418,000 in royalties after winning her lawsuit. According to Billboard , Judge John A. Kronstadt said Cher and Marie’s conflicts revolved around family feuds over contracts and copyright issues, rejecting the rules that apply to repayment.According to Rolling Stone, in the final judgment signed in November 2026, Mary Bono was prohibited from claiming under federal copyright law to recover 50% of the royalties awarded to Cher in the divorce settlement.After Sonny Bono died in a skiing accident in 1998, Mary left behind a vast estate. However, his music rights were terminated in 2018, prompting Mary to reclaim certain benefits.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on legal hearings reported by third-party sources. The details provided represent only allegations by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing and a final verdict has not yet been reached. The publication did not claim the allegations were true.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *