Federal Court rejects Cher’s request from Mary Bono to pay her legal fees. (Image credits: Instagram)
Cher, dubbed the “goddess of pop,” must pay her $1 million legal fees in the case against Sonny Bono’s widow, Mary Bono. While the 80-year-old prevailed in the legal case over unpaid royalties in May 2024, the court dismissed her bill for attorney fees.
After Marie stopped payments to Cher, the singer hired top lawyers to ensure a win in the case – but now, she must cover the payments.Here’s a closer look at the legal tussle between Cher, Sonny Bono, and Mary Bono.
Cher and Sonny Bono: Successful Collaboration
Cher and Sonny Bono collaborated after her rise to fame in the 1960s. As part of their 1978 divorce settlement, the duo formalized a 50% royalty split. However, the conflict began in 2021, when Cher claimed that Mary Bono tried to end the deal between her and Sony.
The lawsuit alleged that Bono attempted to use a “completely unenforceable statutory termination clause of the Copyright Act of 1976” to void the rights deal.
Cher and Mary Bono: Royalties Suit
In 2024, Mary Bono was ordered to pay more than $418,000 in royalties to Cher after winning her lawsuit. According to Billboard, Judge John A. Kronstadt suggests that Cher and Marie’s conflict revolved around a family dispute over contracts and copyrights, and a rejection of the rules that applied to payment.
In the final judgment signed in November 2026, Mary Bono was barred from seeking federal copyright law to reclaim the 50 percent royalties granted to Cher in her divorce agreement, according to Rolling Stone.After Sonny Bono died in 1998 due to a skiing accident, Mary was left with a sprawling estate. However, his music rights became eligible for termination in 2018, triggering an alert for Marie to regain certain interests.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by an external source. The details provided represent claims made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is still ongoing, and no final ruling has been reached. The publication does not claim that these allegations are true.
