Your tip

Cher Scores Small Victory in $1 Million War With Sonny Bono's Widow, Mary Ordered to Turn Over Emails in Court Battle

cher legal battle sonny bono rpyalties pp
Source: MEGA

Dec. 29 2023, Published 3:00 p.m. ET

Link to FacebookShare to XShare to FlipboardShare to Email
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Cher scored a major win in her bombshell court war over royalties with Sonny Bono’s widow.

According to court documents obtained by, Mary Bono was ordered to hand over all electronic communications with a music publishing firm that allegedly helped her divert Cher’s 50% portion of the royalties to Sonny’s adult children, court documents showed.

“Defendant is ordered to produce the communications at issue without redactions,” U.S. Magistrate Rozella A. Oliver wrote in the 11-page order that requires Mary to hand over the communications by January 9, 2024.

Article continues below advertisement
cher mary bono egal battle pp
Source: MEGA

Iconic singer Cher is engaged in a long running federal lawsuit against Sonny Bono's widow, Mary (r).

As previously reported, Cher slammed Mary with the lawsuit charging she secretly began siphoning thousands of dollars in royalty payments generated by Sonny and Cher’s vast music collection and smash hits such as I Got You Babe and The Beat Goes On.

The 77-year-old Grammy winner claimed an ironclad Marriage Settlement Agreement (MSA) she signed with Sonny in 1978 mandates her 50% cut of the duo’s compositions and record sales following their separation and eventual divorce.

Mary, who was married to Sonny for 12 years until his 1998 ski accident death, had a 50/50 cooperating agreement with Cher. But the relationship went south in 2021 when Mary decided to cut Cher off from the royalties — citing a federal Copyright Act.

Article continues below advertisement
cher friends concerned  year old boyfriend ae alexander edwards flirty behavior
Source: MEGA

King called the conservatorship "deeply disturbing."

Article continues below advertisement

Mary claimed she no longer owed Cher any cut of the royalties.

A pre-trial battle erupted when Cher subpoenaed all communications between Mary and Wixen Music Publishing, Inc., the firm that manages the royalties.

Mary tried to block the production by claiming attorney-client privilege — arguing her lawyers consulted with Wixen before diverting the cash — and a work-product clause that protects confidential business information.

Article continues below advertisement
cher sonny mega
Source: MEGA

The duo were known for their classics, I Got You Babe and The Beat Goes On.

Article continues below advertisement

But Magistrate Oliver dismissed both arguments and determined Mary “falls short of meeting her burden to support the assertion[s]” of the attorney-client and the work-product clause.

Oliver determined the attorney-client privilege didn’t apply because no one knew Cher was going to file a lawsuit once they diverted the cash. The work-product doctrine also didn’t apply since Wixen once worked for Cher who is entitled to the same data Mary was trying to conceal.

Article continues below advertisement

Never miss a story — sign up for the newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.

Article continues below advertisement
cher conservatorship son elijah blue allman dad inheritence gregg allman siblings support petition court
Source: MEGA

Mary was recently ordered by a federal judge to hand over her emails with the firm that administers the music catalogue.

Article continues below advertisement

“[Mary] also argues that Wixen, as a music publisher, did not owe [Cher] any fiduciary duties,” the magistrate noted. “However, [Mary] agrees that Wixen was [Cher’s] agent and [Mary's] agent, and an agent owes a principal fiduciary duties.”

“If Wixen did not owe [Cher] fiduciary duties, then Wixen was not [Cher’s] agent. But if the 2011 Agreements were not sufficient to establish an agency relationship with Wixen, it is unclear how the 2019/2020 Agreement established an agency relationship between [Mary] and Wixen,” the magistrate added.

“Thus, Defendant’s argument would lead to a conclusion that Wixen was never an agent to either [May] or [Cher]. The inclusion of a non-agent third party on an otherwise privileged communication would also waive the privilege.”



More From Radar Online

    Opt-out of personalized ads

    © Copyright 2024 RADAR ONLINE™️. A DIVISION OF MYSTIFY ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK INC. RADAR ONLINE is a registered trademark. All rights reserved. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Cookies Policy. People may receive compensation for some links to products and services. Offers may be subject to change without notice.