Blab Music
Cher Loses Bid to Recover Over $1 Million in Legal Fees from Mary Bono
Cher’s request to force Sonny Bono’s widow to reimburse her for more than $1 million in legal fees was denied by a federal judge on Monday, July 20, 2026. The decision means the singer will have to pay her own attorneys’ bill.
The case centers on a 1978 divorce settlement that awarded Cher a permanent 50 percent share of publishing revenue from songs written during her marriage to Sonny Bono, including hits such as “I Got You Babe” and “The Beat Goes On.” In 2021, Mary Bono argued that copyright “termination rights” under the 1976 Copyright Act allowed her to void the divorce agreement and reclaim the royalty share. Judge John A. Kronstadt rejected that argument, ruling that the settlement was a contract for financial compensation, not a copyright assignment, and therefore termination rights did not apply.
Kronstadt’s ruling in May 2024 was finalized in November of that year. Mary Bono has appealed the decision, but the appellate court has not yet issued a ruling. Cher’s lawyers filed a motion for reimbursement after the judge’s decision, claiming that Mary’s “frivolous” attempts to terminate the settlement had dragged the case out for two years and cost Cher more than $1 million in legal expenses.
According to reports, the motion sought to recover $1 023 605.50 in attorney fees. Cher’s attorneys argued that the costs were justified because the lawsuit threatened to strip her of “millions of dollars” in royalties. Kronstadt denied the motion, stating that the parties were not entitled to recover legal costs under the circumstances.
The judge’s decision reinforces the principle that a divorce settlement can supersede statutory termination rights when the agreement is a financial contract rather than a copyright transfer. The ruling is expected to influence future disputes over royalty shares that arise from marital agreements.
Mary Bono, who succeeded her late husband Sonny Bono in Congress after his death in a skiing accident in 1998, has continued to pursue the appeal. The case highlights the intersection of music publishing law and family law, a niche area that has received limited attention until now.
The outcome also underscores the broader implications of the 1976 Copyright Act’s termination provisions. While the Act allows authors to reclaim rights to works they have licensed, the Supreme Court has held that termination does not apply to contracts that are not copyright assignments. This distinction is critical for artists and estates that rely on long‑term royalty streams.
At present, the legal battle remains unresolved. Cher will continue to receive her 50 percent royalty share, and the appeal process will determine whether the settlement can be altered. No new developments have been announced regarding the appellate decision, and the parties have not indicated any settlement.
The case serves as a reminder that contractual agreements made during marriage can have lasting financial consequences, even decades later. For artists and their families, the decision illustrates the importance of clear documentation and the potential limits of statutory remedies.
In the meantime, Cher’s legal team will focus on the appeal while she continues to collect royalties from her catalog. The music industry will watch closely as the appellate court’s decision could set a precedent for similar royalty disputes involving termination rights and divorce settlements.
The case centers on a 1978 divorce settlement that awarded Cher a permanent 50 percent share of publishing revenue from songs written during her marriage to Sonny Bono, including hits such as “I Got You Babe” and “The Beat Goes On.” In 2021, Mary Bono argued that copyright “termination rights” under the 1976 Copyright Act allowed her to void the divorce agreement and reclaim the royalty share. Judge John A. Kronstadt rejected that argument, ruling that the settlement was a contract for financial compensation, not a copyright assignment, and therefore termination rights did not apply.
Kronstadt’s ruling in May 2024 was finalized in November of that year. Mary Bono has appealed the decision, but the appellate court has not yet issued a ruling. Cher’s lawyers filed a motion for reimbursement after the judge’s decision, claiming that Mary’s “frivolous” attempts to terminate the settlement had dragged the case out for two years and cost Cher more than $1 million in legal expenses.
According to reports, the motion sought to recover $1 023 605.50 in attorney fees. Cher’s attorneys argued that the costs were justified because the lawsuit threatened to strip her of “millions of dollars” in royalties. Kronstadt denied the motion, stating that the parties were not entitled to recover legal costs under the circumstances.
The judge’s decision reinforces the principle that a divorce settlement can supersede statutory termination rights when the agreement is a financial contract rather than a copyright transfer. The ruling is expected to influence future disputes over royalty shares that arise from marital agreements.
Mary Bono, who succeeded her late husband Sonny Bono in Congress after his death in a skiing accident in 1998, has continued to pursue the appeal. The case highlights the intersection of music publishing law and family law, a niche area that has received limited attention until now.
The outcome also underscores the broader implications of the 1976 Copyright Act’s termination provisions. While the Act allows authors to reclaim rights to works they have licensed, the Supreme Court has held that termination does not apply to contracts that are not copyright assignments. This distinction is critical for artists and estates that rely on long‑term royalty streams.
At present, the legal battle remains unresolved. Cher will continue to receive her 50 percent royalty share, and the appeal process will determine whether the settlement can be altered. No new developments have been announced regarding the appellate decision, and the parties have not indicated any settlement.
The case serves as a reminder that contractual agreements made during marriage can have lasting financial consequences, even decades later. For artists and their families, the decision illustrates the importance of clear documentation and the potential limits of statutory remedies.
In the meantime, Cher’s legal team will focus on the appeal while she continues to collect royalties from her catalog. The music industry will watch closely as the appellate court’s decision could set a precedent for similar royalty disputes involving termination rights and divorce settlements.
