Cher further contends that there is a “scheme” in place aimed at depriving her of her 50% share of the portfolio.
A federal judge initially ruled in March against dismissing the case, acknowledging the validity of Cher’s claims and setting the stage for further proceedings.
Cher’s lawsuit emphasizes the agreed-upon split of royalties in the 1975 divorce settlement, claiming that Mary has been wrongfully attempting to collect royalties that are not owed to her.
In her legal action, Cher seeks $1 million in damages and requests the court to affirm the validity of the divorce agreement.
Mary, on the other hand, seeks the dismissal of all claims, arguing that federal law grants her the authority to terminate the agreement, asserting that the 50% deal had expired, and the royalties should now be paid to Sonny’s heirs.
Mary’s motion highlights a provision in the controversial Copyright Act of 1976, which allows authors to cancel transfers of their copyrights under specific circumstances and reclaim them after 35 years.
