|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Mar 30, 2022 22:40:43 GMT
www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/beach-boy-brian-wilsons-ex-wife-sues-over-millions-song-royalties-2022-03-29/(Reuters) - Marilyn Wilson-Rutherford, the first wife of Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson, has sued Wilson for a share of royalties that she says he owes her from some of the band's best-known songs.
In a lawsuit moved from Los Angeles state court to federal court Friday, Wilson-Rutherford asked the court to order Wilson to pay her at least $6.7 million from song rights he sold to a Universal Music Corp affiliate last year and for a full accounting of royalties Wilson owes her from the past seven years.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Mar 30, 2022 23:08:14 GMT
It just never ends with this group.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 30, 2022 23:15:56 GMT
Unsurprising, and it makes sense. The article says their divorce agreement gave her a certain percentage, and any major deal/sale (such as the recent one) is bound to spur a review of valuation.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Mar 30, 2022 23:20:47 GMT
Unsurprising, and it makes sense. The article says their divorce agreement gave her a certain percentage, and any major deal/sale (such as the recent one) is bound to spur a review of valuation. I can understand that. What I can't understand is how it would have to fall into the category of "a lawsuit". Couldn't the accountants/attorneys reach a settlement before it reaches, first the state court, and then the federal court?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 30, 2022 23:32:56 GMT
I think that's something that those of us living without massive incomes, or massive estates, or the potential to inherit (or pass along) either--or permanent legal representation, for that matter--will always struggle with.
As for the state/federal thing, that sounds as if federal is more serious than state. That's not the case. It's not that cases in federal court are inherently more serious than those in state courts. The request to move it almost certainly would have to do with perceived advantage under the relevant laws, procedural rules, makeup of judiciary, etc.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Mar 30, 2022 23:49:55 GMT
I think that's something that those of us living without massive incomes, or massive estates, or the potential to inherit (or pass along) either--or permanent legal representation, for that matter--will always struggle with. I don't think massive incomes or estates are needed - I think it's relative. You see it most surrounding inheritances, but people fight over/about money (directly or indirectly) all the time. It boggles my mind how entitled people become. (And lawsuits aren't reserved for the uber-rich.)
|
|
Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Mar 31, 2022 3:59:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 31, 2022 11:19:42 GMT
I think that's something that those of us living without massive incomes, or massive estates, or the potential to inherit (or pass along) either--or permanent legal representation, for that matter--will always struggle with. I don't think massive incomes or estates are needed - I think it's relative. You see it most surrounding inheritances, but people fight over/about money (directly or indirectly) all the time. It boggles my mind how entitled people become. (And lawsuits aren't reserved for the uber-rich.) That's fair enough. Though litigation does cost money, so I think that while $3,000 might tear a family apart but not necessarily end up in court--and certainly not with really good representation or in ongoing litigation. When we're talking a lot of money, there's just more there to fight over (and to use to fund the whole thing).
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Mar 31, 2022 14:20:15 GMT
I think another thing to keep in mind is that going to court doesn't always mean it's an emotional fight. Sometimes people go to court because it really is the best way to solve a reasonable disagreement with a neutral third party taking the ability to be indecisive away from the parties with a dispute. There actually is a substantial legal question in this case; is Marilyn entitled to profits from reversion rights that apply to intellectual property that was created during the marriage, but did not vest until well after the divorce.
In any case, this money has been generated and has to wind up in somebody's bank account -- is it not just to seek to distribute it according to the laws?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 31, 2022 14:39:10 GMT
I think another thing to keep in mind is that going to court doesn't always mean it's an emotional fight. Sometimes people go to court because it really is the best way to solve a reasonable disagreement with a neutral third party taking the ability to be indecisive away from the parties with a dispute. There actually is a substantial legal question in this case; is Marilyn entitled to profits from reversion rights that apply to intellectual property that was created during the marriage, but did not vest until well after the divorce. In any case, this money has been generated and has to wind up in somebody's bank account -- is it not just to seek to distribute it according to the laws? Oh, for sure! That was my thinking in my initial post in this thread. They had a financial arrangement as part of the divorce. The finances involved changed radically with the sale. My most recent post (about the hypothetical $3,000) was an entirely different thing, that yes, smaller amounts CAN tear families apart. But I definitely didn't mean to imply this was some deeply emotional or even unpleasantly adversarial situation. I have no idea, but no reason to think it is. (I mean, it is by definition adversarial, but that doesn't have to mean nasty or emotional.)
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Mar 31, 2022 15:17:59 GMT
My comment wasn't a response to anything you'd said, it was more of a preëmptive response to people who automatically assume litigation is tragic.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Mar 31, 2022 15:25:07 GMT
Unsurprising, and it makes sense. The article says their divorce agreement gave her a certain percentage, and any major deal/sale (such as the recent one) is bound to spur a review of valuation. I can understand that. What I can't understand is how it would have to fall into the category of "a lawsuit". Couldn't the accountants/attorneys reach a settlement before it reaches, first the state court, and then the federal court? It's entirely possible that they gave it an honest go at settlement, and in good faith couldn't agree on what the amounts are. The question of how the reversion rights vest so long after a divorce seems to be an unsettled legal question, or at least one without a clear disposition to guide the attorneys in this case. If you can afford it, sometimes it's just better to have the courts sort it out, rather than risk doing the wrong thing and paying for it later.
|
|