Cher’s decades-long royalty dispute with Mary Bono, widow of her ex-husband Sonny, finally reached a conclusion in May 2024 when a federal judge sided with the legendary singer. The ruling confirmed that Cher’s 1978 divorce settlement remains valid, meaning she continues to receive 50% of the publishing revenue from iconic Sonny and Cher duets like“I Got You Babe,”“The Beat Goes On,”and“Baby Don’t Go.”It was a clear victory on the merits, but a federal judge’s recent decision proved that winning isn’t always worth the cost.
When Cher tried to recover her $1,023,605 in legal fees from the years-long battle, the judge denied her request. The reason came down to a technicality: because the case fundamentally involved California contract law rather than federal copyright law, the rules allowing winning parties to recoup attorney costs didn’t apply. Judge John Kronstadt determined that despite Mary Bono’s arguments about copyright termination rights, the settlement was a financial compensation contract, not a copyright assignment. That distinction may seem minor, but it ended up costing Cher her chance at recovering her legal expenses.
The takeaway for musicians, creative professionals, and anyone navigating a significant split is clear: how you word your settlement agreement matters enormously. One poorly chosen phrase or missing clarification could open the door to years of expensive litigation. Plus, Mary Bono is appealing the decision, meaning this legal saga may have more chapters ahead. What’s your take — should courts be required to make the losing side pay the winner’s legal bills, especially in cases like this?
About the Author
Ava Hart
Ava Hart is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.
