The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: Pretty Funky on March 30, 2022, 12:22:27 PM



Title: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Pretty Funky on March 30, 2022, 12:22:27 PM
(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.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/beach-boy-brian-wilsons-ex-wife-sues-over-millions-song-royalties-2022-03-29/


Oh dearÖ.☹️


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on March 30, 2022, 01:24:22 PM
Not speaking at all to the veracity or efficacy of the claims in this lawsuit, but if you're thinking ďwow, thatís a lot of money for her to spend on attorneysĒ, I urge you to read the full lawsuit filing for an explanation of how one could afford that. A bunch of it is tedious as these things always are, but there are some interesting bits buried in there.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: guitarfool2002 on March 30, 2022, 02:06:23 PM
He has company, Brian isn't the only Beach Boy to be dealing with a current lawsuit involving royalty payments.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: juggler on March 30, 2022, 02:24:12 PM
Not commenting at all on the merits of Marilyn's claims, but it's sad if 80-year-old Brian gets dragged to depositions over business issues that he undoubtedly finds tedious and stressful.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Pretty Funky on March 30, 2022, 04:37:06 PM
He has company, Brian isn't the only Beach Boy to be dealing with a current lawsuit involving royalty payments.

HmmmÖ..Considering the number of ex-wives in the Beach Boys circle, things might get very complex and expensive. 😳


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on March 30, 2022, 05:12:14 PM
Certainly wasnít expecting THIS today Ö


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Tony S on March 30, 2022, 05:17:01 PM
Boy at this stage of the game I hate to see this. I always thought Brian in Maryland had a pretty good amicable divorce and after divorce relationship. Maybe they do but certainly this isn't going to help it


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: B.E. on March 30, 2022, 05:32:15 PM
I urge you to read the full lawsuit filing
Could you, or someone, post a link?


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Wirestone on March 30, 2022, 06:27:27 PM
https://tmsnrt.rs/3uCTnbh


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Emdeeh on March 30, 2022, 08:38:46 PM
In David's case, he's the one suing for streaming royalties.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: UEF on March 31, 2022, 04:06:00 AM
https://tmsnrt.rs/3uCTnbh

My hat goes off to anyone willing to read through that


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: juggler on March 31, 2022, 06:21:02 AM
I skimmed through some of the legal documents.  Some interesting factoids.  Kind of amazed at the numbers involved, e.g., Brian selling rights Universal for $33 million last year, cutting a check to Marilyn for $11 mn which she considers insufficient.   If someone handed me a check for $11 million my reaction would likely be somewhat different, but I don't live in their rarefied world so I'm not making any judgments.

It's interesting to see the old divorce order from 1980, particularly as it mentions the proceeds of the sale of Laurel Way.  I didn't realize until now that they didn't sell that place when they decamped for Bellagio Road in 1967.  Anyone have any idea what they were doing with it for those last dozen or so years?  Renting it out?  Letting relatives live there? Storage?



Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: 37!ws on March 31, 2022, 06:48:58 AM
Well, the thing is, if you accept the check for $11 million and consider it sufficient, that could be used as precedence in future matters. "Well, you felt the payment for X was sufficient last time, but now you want payment for X and Y? Why didn't you ask for Y before?" That's one reason, for example, a lot of companies come down VERY hard on copyright/trademark infringement and why a lot of YouTube videos get taken down or muted within seconds: companies know that they need to act quick.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Wirestone on March 31, 2022, 06:54:21 AM
Frankly this seems like a fairly minor dispute. Marilynís side thinks they deserve half of Brianís producer royalties, and Brianís side disagrees. Marilyn is also asking for more detailed financial accounting, which seems like a no brained given the amounts involved.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: guitarfool2002 on March 31, 2022, 07:11:36 AM
In David's case, he's the one suing for streaming royalties.

Yes in that case David is the plaintiff suing for royalty payments, so it's not David in the other case.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: CenturyDeprived on March 31, 2022, 07:26:14 AM
I hope everything gets resolved quickly and amicably and that this doesn't drag on for the sake of all parties involved.

One interesting trivia tidbit, on page 76 of that legal document, it appears back in the early 80s, Judge Joseph Wapner was the judge involved in the original divorce case, he is best known for being the judge on the TV series The People's Court.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: guitarfool2002 on March 31, 2022, 07:46:04 AM
There are some interesting legal and financial issues in this, and some which I'm a little confused about, so maybe someone with more knowledge on California law can chime in. First, California is a pretty f**ked up state to begin with when it comes to their state laws covering divorce settlements (among other f'ed up things in that state which I won't mention to avoid politics  ;D). They have a 50/50 split when it comes to dividing estates in divorce settlements, provided the parties don't agree on their own terms of how to divide the common property and assets.

So there are issues in this case about 30 year statutes versus 35 (the copyright revisions) regarding the specifics and assets of the divorce, the copyrights and future royalties which were part of a settlement in the 90's, the recent sale of the catalog, etc. I know intellectual and creative property isn't the same as hard financial asset like stock or real estate, but songs and song values are pretty close to how stock and property works too, where the values of songs ebb and flow through the years depending on use and popularity.

So hypothetically what if I were married in California in the 80's: I had acquired/earned $5,000 worth of stock in a startup company I started working for while I was married. So when I got divorced, my ex-wife under CA law is entitled to half of that stock which I received while we were married, so she got half the stock to do with what she pleases. But, what if that stock multiplied in value over the next 40 years to the point where it's worth millions, do I still need to give the ex-spouse half of all the dividends I earned from that stock's increase in value and even possible splits even though she already received her half of the stock itself in the divorce agreement? If I were to sell the stock decades later, and make an even million dollars on the sale, would my ex-spouse then be entitled to 500,000 from my profits on that sale even though the divorce was decades ago and she had already received her half of the shares in the divorce settlement?

Not that I plan to move to California anytime soon, but some of the details in the case raise some pretty interesting questions and some which seem pretty specific to California law governing such things.



Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: juggler on March 31, 2022, 10:06:20 AM
There are some interesting legal and financial issues in this, and some which I'm a little confused about, so maybe someone with more knowledge on California law can chime in. First, California is a pretty f**ked up state to begin with when it comes to their state laws covering divorce settlements (among other f'ed up things in that state which I won't mention to avoid politics  ;D). They have a 50/50 split when it comes to dividing estates in divorce settlements, provided the parties don't agree on their own terms of how to divide the common property and assets.

So there are issues in this case about 30 year statutes versus 35 (the copyright revisions) regarding the specifics and assets of the divorce, the copyrights and future royalties which were part of a settlement in the 90's, the recent sale of the catalog, etc. I know intellectual and creative property isn't the same as hard financial asset like stock or real estate, but songs and song values are pretty close to how stock and property works too, where the values of songs ebb and flow through the years depending on use and popularity.

So hypothetically what if I were married in California in the 80's: I had acquired/earned $5,000 worth of stock in a startup company I started working for while I was married. So when I got divorced, my ex-wife under CA law is entitled to half of that stock which I received while we were married, so she got half the stock to do with what she pleases. But, what if that stock multiplied in value over the next 40 years to the point where it's worth millions, do I still need to give the ex-spouse half of all the dividends I earned from that stock's increase in value and even possible splits even though she already received her half of the stock itself in the divorce agreement? If I were to sell the stock decades later, and make an even million dollars on the sale, would my ex-spouse then be entitled to 500,000 from my profits on that sale even though the divorce was decades ago and she had already received her half of the shares in the divorce settlement?

I'm in California and have some experience with this topic.  The answer to your question is "no."  If the stock were split upon the divorce, she'd get her shares to do what she wanted with and you'd get yours and that would be that.

 In real life, though, things can get complicated.  Maybe you're still working at the company after the divorce and you're awarded some new stock.  You (and your lawyer) would say that this isn't "community property" because it was earned after the marriage, but she and her lawyer might argue that there's a community property component because it results in part at least from the seniority or good will or whatever you've built up during your entire career there, part of which happened during the marriage.

In the Wilson case, there wasn't anything resembling the "clean break" of your hypothetical.  Marilyn was awarded 50% of whatever interest Brian had in 170 songs written between 12/7/64 and the divorce.  In other words, Brian and Marilyn are and have been business partners with respect to those 170 songs for all these years.  So in other words this differs from your hypothetical where the stock shares are simply split and you go your separate ways.  It would be like you and your ex jointly owned the shares together, and, so, yes, she'd be in line for half of whatever appreciation, dividends, etc occurred ever after.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on March 31, 2022, 11:24:42 AM
It's also worth pondering, and again I have to stress I'm not speaking to the merits of the case and certainly not to what anybody is "owed" or "entitled" to morally or ethically or legally, what kind of legal representation Brian had back in that 1978-1981 frame. One has to wonder, considering the shambles his life was during that time frame, and the lack of people he had around him (even if some of those around him were absolutely well-intentioned) whether he had like the best legal team possible. We also have to ponder what kind of money Brian had on hand back in that time frame to even entertain alternate "buy out" scenarios.

Let's recall that most have opined (including Mike Love himself) that even years later, Brian maybe didn't have the best legal advice back in the post-Landy fog of the mid-90s in that songwriting lawsuit, where many (again including Mike himself) have pointed out a settlement before a trial would have been much more advisable on numerous levels.

One wonders if Brian had back in 1981 the financial resources he had in the 2000s or 2010s, he might have been able to both hire the top legal counsel available, and to be able to offer a large cash settlement in a divorce rather than having to be tied up as a 50/50 business partner for the rest of his life.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on March 31, 2022, 11:29:00 AM
I skimmed through some of the legal documents.  Some interesting factoids.  Kind of amazed at the numbers involved, e.g., Brian selling rights Universal for $33 million last year, cutting a check to Marilyn for $11 mn which she considers insufficient.   If someone handed me a check for $11 million my reaction would likely be somewhat different, but I don't live in their rarefied world so I'm not making any judgments.

It's interesting to see the old divorce order from 1980, particularly as it mentions the proceeds of the sale of Laurel Way.  I didn't realize until now that they didn't sell that place when they decamped for Bellagio Road in 1967.  Anyone have any idea what they were doing with it for those last dozen or so years?  Renting it out?  Letting relatives live there? Storage?



The $11 million payout actually answers the question of how one could afford the legal bills to proceed with this current lawsuit. It's probably worth a mil in legal bills to pursue another 5 or 10 or whatever it might be.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on March 31, 2022, 12:29:48 PM
Frankly this seems like a fairly minor dispute. Marilynís side thinks they deserve half of Brianís producer royalties, and Brianís side disagrees. Marilyn is also asking for more detailed financial accounting, which seems like a no brained given the amounts involved.

While the brass tacks of the case are probably simpler than the huge document and verbiage might lead some to believe, I'd say they are certainly sniffing around on more than just the producer royalties and more precise numbers on already agreed-upon shared earnings.

In particular, there seems to be in those e-mail exchanges a pretty obvious potential disagreement on whether Marilyn gets half of the copyright terminations/reversions Brian gets as the 56-year period rolls over on each year's worth of songs. Brian's side argues he never had those rights when they were married, so it was not "property" to divide. Marilyn's side certainly seems to be at least primed to argue otherwise (and I would imagine many other divorced couples are looking at this issue; the e-mails even cite a case involving Smokey Robinson), and at one point it looks like Brian's side, without of course acknowledging she's entitled to any of those terminations, pitches a settlement offer of $3mil+.

There also seems to be a disagreement brewing regarding the difference between royalties on compositions versus royalties on sound recordings. Assuming the documentation is accurate, that Marilyn has never been given any share of that and Brian's side feels the divorce agreement expressly states she doesn't get a share of that, and that she has had accountings over the years and never asked for that, I'd wager it's less likely she'd be able to argue she gets a cut of that. If a court were to rule she *is* entitled to that, it sounds like they'd be looking at 40+ years of non-payments.

A lot of interesting stuff in these docs. The e-mail exchanges attached as exhibits are probably more interesting than the actual lawsuit verbiage (or even the copy of the '81 divorce settlement), as it lays out some interesting information. It certainly indicates the Iconic sale last year has shaken loose a bunch of questions from Marilyn. But it sounds like the sale of songwriting royalties to Universal (UMPG) has raised the most questions. One of the interesting things that divorce settlement (and later e-mails) gets into is that Brian has first rights of refusal on the interests that Marilyn does hold on those songs, and Brian is allowed to make decisions (e.g. selling to other parties) without Marilyn's input, as long as everything is properly accounted for.

This is why at first some of the e-mails start to make it sound like Brian made a bunch of big sales without talking to Marilyn, but in fact he's allowed to do so as long as he continues to account for all of the proceeds she's entitled to (and/or whomever purchases rights from Brian remains accountable to her when/if it's called for). In the e-mails, they discuss various scenarios in attempting to allow Marilyn to separately sell her share of Brian's writer royalties, but it gets into a bunch of corporate/financial mumbo jumbo as to why that's not advisable.

I would still imagine a settlement is the likely outcome of this case.

There is clearly A LOT of money rolling around in all of these, shall we call it, "late life" sales, and while that means those who are due cuts of parts of that money are understandably wanting to pursue everything they can, it also means the main entity/person selling these interests are bringing in A LOT of money which can potentially make settlements much more easy.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on March 31, 2022, 01:07:30 PM
Regarding Wapner being the judge on Brian's divorce proceedings, I recall that Timothy White's book back in the 90s mentioned this. But it's interesting of course to see the full settlement document, complete with Wapner's signature. It would be a  couple more years before he got famous. Although it looks like even back in 1981 Wapner was already retired and serving as Judge Pro Tem on the case.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: 37!ws on March 31, 2022, 01:42:59 PM
One interesting trivia tidbit, on page 76 of that legal document, it appears back in the early 80s, Judge Joseph Wapner was the judge involved in the original divorce case, he is best known for being the judge on the TV series The People's Court.

And Ito presided over the Landy case. Next thing you know, Brian and Vanna White will have a small claims property dispute settled by Steve Harvey.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: >PapaLaPap< on April 01, 2022, 12:38:42 AM
How it all began (as retold by Malakidavid/PapaLaPap:)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
 :santa >A dose: most lips igniting !?   :love     I spilt some soda<> [ :-[ (:red)] MARILYN ! :bw
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :santa On Rovel' blouse !?                  :beer     Yes!  U'~o', L* !   :bw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 :santa  Blew !   Or ?.....                      :hug      NO!'n'Y L*: I RAM*d'ER !<  :bw


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: guitarfool2002 on April 01, 2022, 08:14:51 AM
There are some interesting legal and financial issues in this, and some which I'm a little confused about, so maybe someone with more knowledge on California law can chime in. First, California is a pretty f**ked up state to begin with when it comes to their state laws covering divorce settlements (among other f'ed up things in that state which I won't mention to avoid politics  ;D). They have a 50/50 split when it comes to dividing estates in divorce settlements, provided the parties don't agree on their own terms of how to divide the common property and assets.

So there are issues in this case about 30 year statutes versus 35 (the copyright revisions) regarding the specifics and assets of the divorce, the copyrights and future royalties which were part of a settlement in the 90's, the recent sale of the catalog, etc. I know intellectual and creative property isn't the same as hard financial asset like stock or real estate, but songs and song values are pretty close to how stock and property works too, where the values of songs ebb and flow through the years depending on use and popularity.

So hypothetically what if I were married in California in the 80's: I had acquired/earned $5,000 worth of stock in a startup company I started working for while I was married. So when I got divorced, my ex-wife under CA law is entitled to half of that stock which I received while we were married, so she got half the stock to do with what she pleases. But, what if that stock multiplied in value over the next 40 years to the point where it's worth millions, do I still need to give the ex-spouse half of all the dividends I earned from that stock's increase in value and even possible splits even though she already received her half of the stock itself in the divorce agreement? If I were to sell the stock decades later, and make an even million dollars on the sale, would my ex-spouse then be entitled to 500,000 from my profits on that sale even though the divorce was decades ago and she had already received her half of the shares in the divorce settlement?

I'm in California and have some experience with this topic.  The answer to your question is "no."  If the stock were split upon the divorce, she'd get her shares to do what she wanted with and you'd get yours and that would be that.

 In real life, though, things can get complicated.  Maybe you're still working at the company after the divorce and you're awarded some new stock.  You (and your lawyer) would say that this isn't "community property" because it was earned after the marriage, but she and her lawyer might argue that there's a community property component because it results in part at least from the seniority or good will or whatever you've built up during your entire career there, part of which happened during the marriage.

In the Wilson case, there wasn't anything resembling the "clean break" of your hypothetical.  Marilyn was awarded 50% of whatever interest Brian had in 170 songs written between 12/7/64 and the divorce.  In other words, Brian and Marilyn are and have been business partners with respect to those 170 songs for all these years.  So in other words this differs from your hypothetical where the stock shares are simply split and you go your separate ways.  It would be like you and your ex jointly owned the shares together, and, so, yes, she'd be in line for half of whatever appreciation, dividends, etc occurred ever after.

Thank you for the clarification! The fact that these laws differ from state to state makes it difficult to decipher sometimes, and as we've seen with other Beach Boys lawsuits in the past, the state where the suit is filed can have an impact on the case.

Just reading through more of the details and the comments here, it would seem certain elements of recent deals made pretty long after the fact (the divorce itself) are going to be key details in the case, and it will be interesting to see what happens.

For those who are old enough to remember, Johnny Carson would make jokes regularly about his divorces and alimony payments to his ex-wives, and reading through this considering how many business interests Carson had, it's pretty staggering to consider what he would have to pay out each month if the same laws were in place while he was alive. I'm reading it that every deal Carson made while married to one of his wives would be subject to whatever divorce settlement they had in place, and I'm guessing it was active in perpetuity based on the details of this Wilson case. It's unbelievable if that was the case. A lot of people joke about celebrities signing the "pre-nup" agreement, but damn it does make sense with that much money in play.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on April 01, 2022, 10:01:32 AM
And one has to remember, a divorce settlement can be anything the two parties agree to. I'm sure a lot of rich and/or famous people who get divorced in California and other community property states don't end up with this type of life-long 50/50 arrangement, because in many cases, especially where one of the two is far more wealthy (or able to continue to generate wealth in the future), they offer a big settlement lump sum.

As one of the Brian lawyers puts it in one of those e-mails attached as an exhibit, even in that '81 divorce settlement agreement, there is some apparent "horse trading" going on.

I still suspect that had Brian had the resources in 1981 that he has today, a divorce settlement probably would have looked somewhat different.

It's also kind of funny, and again I'm not speaking the actual merits of the case or anything attached to the case, but there's a good amount of detail (and affidavits from Marilyn's legal team to go along with it) in this paperwork concerning Marilyn wanting Brian to pay her current legal fees to pursue this case. They argue a number of reasons for this, I'm sure some stronger than others. But they do argue in part that Brian has more financial resources than Marilyn. And while that's undoubtedly true, it is pretty funny to see these documents literally outline that Marilyn just recently received a check for over $11 million, and is arguing the other side should cover her legal fees which amount to about $50K thus far and they argue would be significantly more if it stretches on. Even if all true, it would probably amount to a few hundred thousand in legal bills. Again, there are scenarios where Brian's side would end up having to pay all of those fees. But it's certainly true that Marilyn presumably has *plenty* of funds on hand to cover any potential legal cost up front.

I'm certainly no expert in precedent concerning plaintiffs in cases succeeding in getting the defendant to cover all their legal fees *before* litigation commences based on the factors laid out in this paperwork (which seems to include likelihood of winning of course, but also essentially arguing that Marilyn needs an expensive, thorough legal team because Brian's team is so high-powered, and also as mentioned before, arguing that Brian has more financial resources than Marilyn). But if a factor weighed is not simply whether one party has more than the other, but whether the plaintiff has plenty of funds to cover those bills up-front, then I'm not sure how often courts like to make defendants pay those fees up front when there is at least a possibility that it will be reversed later on.

It's also undeniably interesting to see even these legal teams be pretty dismissive (though understandably so) of the later-era material. The vast majority of the funds coming out of all of this are of course the 60s hits. So it's a bit funny to see the questions from Marilyn's team about Brother Publishing and Wilojarston Publishing met with kind of "meh, Brian didn't even write a lot of that stuff, and what he did doesn't generate much money." At one point they even specifically single out "Sail on Sailor" as kind of one of the only even slightly "big" songs from that catalog.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: juggler on April 01, 2022, 01:41:28 PM
A lot of people joke about celebrities signing the "pre-nup" agreement, but damn it does make sense with that much money in play.

At all socioeconomic levels, divorce is an expensive habit, but, yeah, a prenup seems like a no-brainer for any extremely wealthy successful person contemplating marriage.  I say "seems," because real life has a way of intruding and it's easier said than done to tell the supposed love of your life to sign on the dotted line and waive certain rights.  Definitely can be a relationship buzzkill for some people.  

Semi-funny story.  I have a friend who's extremely successful in her profession.  Was getting married (in California)--- her first, his second.  He was gainfully employed, but she was under the impression that she was going to be the bigger breadwinner in the marriage.   Anyway, she suggests a prenup. His response was, "Great idea!"   As part of the horsetrading going into the drafting and signing up for the prenup, she discovers that her fiance's net worth was essentially quadruple hers.  Oops.  :lol

Anyhow, HeyJude is right that divorce settlements even in CA are negotiable, and Brian finds himself in the position that he's in due to a deal that he made back in 1980.  It didn't necessarily have to be this way. But, hey, it's par for the course, as not only Brian but also the rest of the BBs have a history of making bad business deal after bad business deal after bad business deal.  It's also a testament to the power and commerciality and sheer genius of his music that, despite all those bad deals, the music continues to make Brian and his extended dependents all fabulously wealthy.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Emily on April 01, 2022, 01:44:36 PM
It appears that Marilyn is asking for $700K for her to pay accountants and lawyers to find a true accounting *and* for Brian to be ordered to provide a true accounting.

Seems like it should be one or the other.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on April 01, 2022, 02:06:13 PM
A lot of people joke about celebrities signing the "pre-nup" agreement, but damn it does make sense with that much money in play.

At all socioeconomic levels, divorce is an expensive habit, but, yeah, a prenup seems like a no-brainer for any extremely wealthy successful person contemplating marriage.  I say "seems," because real life has a way of intruding and it's easier said than done to tell the supposed love of your life to sign on the dotted line and waive certain rights.  Definitely can be a relationship buzzkill for some people.  

Semi-funny story.  I have a friend who's extremely successful in her profession.  Was getting married (in California)--- her first, his second.  He was gainfully employed, but she was under the impression that she was going to be the bigger breadwinner in the marriage.   Anyway, she suggests a prenup. His response was, "Great idea!"   As part of the horsetrading going into the drafting and signing up for the prenup, she discovers that her fiance's net worth was essentially quadruple hers.  Oops.  :lol

Anyhow, HeyJude is right that divorce settlements even in CA are negotiable, and Brian finds himself in the position that he's in due to a deal that he made back in 1980.  It didn't necessarily have to be this way. But, hey, it's par for the course, as not only Brian but also the rest of the BBs have a history of making bad business deal after bad business deal after bad business deal.  It's also a testament to the power and commerciality and sheer genius of his music that, despite all those bad deals, the music continues to make Brian and his extended dependents all fabulously wealthy.

And that is certainly an important thing on the non-legal side to keep in perspective: They're all (well, the main current shareholders anyway) insanely wealthy off all of this. As if they weren't already, that Iconic payday certainly had to be a nice chunk of money, and they still participate in profit sharing as minority shareholders as well. Mike makes his own money off touring, only paying a licensing fee (of which he collects 25% back). Brian also just got a huge chunk of money from UMPG, both Brian and Mike appear to be perusing copyright terminations/reversions on their stuff.

And now we learn that some long-time exes are also insanely wealthy off of this as well.

I'm by no means any sort of expert in the pertinent fields, but while it looks like Brian could have theoretically made out better in the long run on that divorce settlement given any number of alternate circumstances, I can't say that settlement is like the biggest travesty of all time or anything. It seems to generally keep to the spirit of it being a community property state, with the aforementioned "horse trading" to hash out some bits here and there. Like, outside of weird infamous circumstances of divorce judges cutting every martial asset literally in half down to the silverware, some of the tangible, physical assets in that divorce are more easily given to one or the other. Hence the horse trading.

The band members, as many music acts of that era have been doing over the last several years, are clearly trying to streamline their financial/business empires, and also cash out a lot of it (whether for themselves or for family, or whatever the case may be). One would think this might lessen the likelihood of future litigation either before or after they're gone. But I would guess this current lawsuit will not be the last we see, and when any or all of the band members are no longer with us, I can just as easily see a new era of litigation, at least in some cases.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Joshilyn Hoisington on April 02, 2022, 07:30:54 AM
It appears that Marilyn is asking for $700K for her to pay accountants and lawyers to find a true accounting *and* for Brian to be ordered to provide a true accounting.

Seems like it should be one or the other.

Usually a decent lawyer will ask for a number of different outcomes in a pleading; a judge will rarely order something that isn't asked for explicitly.  So in this case, Marilyn's lawyers are providing the judge with the option to order Brian to do it, or failing that, authorization for Marilyn to do it on Brian's dime.  A lot of lawyering is throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it will stick.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Zenobi on April 04, 2022, 04:39:42 PM
Seems Loren was right.
Poor Brian.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Emdeeh on April 04, 2022, 05:05:50 PM
Disagree -- I think this is just lawyer business, not something personal.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: juggler on April 04, 2022, 08:01:33 PM
I joked upthread that if someone handed me a check for $11 million my response might be something other than initiating litigation against them.  And I do feel sorry for Brian, as it's even if it's "just business," the man is ~80 years old and it's no fun be a defendant in litigation at any age, especially when the subpoenas to depositions start rolling in. Believe me.

At the same, I don't judge Marilyn.  As I said, I don't live in their world.  And, of course, at a very basic level, a deal is a deal.  If she owns half of whatever Brian owns with respect to those 170 songs, then she gets half the net proceeds and would certainly be entitled to an accounting of how her distribution was calculated. The same would be true for any co-owner of any business.  And, also, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about generational wealth here.  In this matter, Marilyn may not only be thinking of herself but also Carnie, Wendy and the half-dozen, I believe, grandchildren on that side.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Musketeer on April 05, 2022, 02:29:36 PM
I joked upthread that if someone handed me a check for $11 million my response might be something other than initiating litigation against them.  And I do feel sorry for Brian, as it's even if it's "just business," the man is ~80 years old and it's no fun be a defendant in litigation at any age, especially when the subpoenas to depositions start rolling in. Believe me.

At the same, I don't judge Marilyn.  As I said, I don't live in their world.  And, of course, at a very basic level, a deal is a deal.  If she owns half of whatever Brian owns with respect to those 170 songs, then she gets half the net proceeds and would certainly be entitled to an accounting of how her distribution was calculated. The same would be true for any co-owner of any business.  And, also, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about generational wealth here.  In this matter, Marilyn may not only be thinking of herself but also Carnie, Wendy and the half-dozen, I believe, grandchildren on that side.
That's a bit overly generous as Carnie, Wendy and the grandchildren are also Brian's.  Is there some expectation he wouldn't provide for them but Marilyn would?


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Wirestone on April 05, 2022, 03:19:12 PM
I joked upthread that if someone handed me a check for $11 million my response might be something other than initiating litigation against them.  And I do feel sorry for Brian, as it's even if it's "just business," the man is ~80 years old and it's no fun be a defendant in litigation at any age, especially when the subpoenas to depositions start rolling in. Believe me.

At the same, I don't judge Marilyn.  As I said, I don't live in their world.  And, of course, at a very basic level, a deal is a deal.  If she owns half of whatever Brian owns with respect to those 170 songs, then she gets half the net proceeds and would certainly be entitled to an accounting of how her distribution was calculated. The same would be true for any co-owner of any business.  And, also, it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about generational wealth here.  In this matter, Marilyn may not only be thinking of herself but also Carnie, Wendy and the half-dozen, I believe, grandchildren on that side.
That's a bit overly generous as Carnie, Wendy and the grandchildren are also Brian's.  Is there some expectation he wouldn't provide for them but Marilyn would?

Yes. Given the relations ó or lack thereof ó between Melinda and Marilynís daughters, and the fact that Melinda and Brian have five children of their own, I think concern would be prudent.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Pretty Funky on April 07, 2022, 06:07:50 AM
In David's case, he's the one suing for streaming royalties.

And itís one he has just lostÖ

https://www.courthousenews.com/former-beach-boys-member-loses-lawsuit-against-umg-over-foreign-streaming-royalties/


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: thetojo on April 21, 2022, 10:26:08 PM
Well he didn't actually lose - the case has been thrown out because the court papers don't have enough detail. Big difference. He could most likely get together the required detail and try again.

In David's case, he's the one suing for streaming royalties.

And itís one he has just lostÖ

https://www.courthousenews.com/former-beach-boys-member-loses-lawsuit-against-umg-over-foreign-streaming-royalties/


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: HeyJude on April 22, 2022, 06:28:01 AM
Well he didn't actually lose - the case has been thrown out because the court papers don't have enough detail. Big difference. He could most likely get together the required detail and try again.

The article indicates that this already happened:

The judge had previously dismissed the claims but allowed Marks an opportunity to fix its shortcomings.

This particular case appears to be over; it cannot be amended:

This time the judge didnít allow further amendment of the allegations and closed the case.

Of course, anybody can bring a new suit against anybody. But considering they were already allowed a chance to come up with additional evidence/documentation to amend their filing and were apparently unable to come up with any new information, I'd say the chances of filing a *new* case and succeeding would be very slim, unless they uncovered new information.


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: Love Thang on April 28, 2022, 05:35:14 PM
Brian should bring in Rocky Pamplin as a witness


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: thetojo on April 28, 2022, 06:16:35 PM
Well he didn't actually lose - the case has been thrown out because the court papers don't have enough detail. Big difference. He could most likely get together the required detail and try again.

The article indicates that this already happened:

The judge had previously dismissed the claims but allowed Marks an opportunity to fix its shortcomings.

This particular case appears to be over; it cannot be amended:

This time the judge didnít allow further amendment of the allegations and closed the case.

Of course, anybody can bring a new suit against anybody. But considering they were already allowed a chance to come up with additional evidence/documentation to amend their filing and were apparently unable to come up with any new information, I'd say the chances of filing a *new* case and succeeding would be very slim, unless they uncovered new information.

Thanks for clearing that up - I feel like such an idiot. I gotta stop posting sh*t before reading stuff properly!


Title: Re: Brianís Going Back To Court
Post by: SenorPotatoHead on May 04, 2022, 08:10:15 AM
Frankly, I find it disgusting how petty and sh*tty people are when they're all so rich they can't see how blessed they are and just be happy.  What kind of creep would deny their spouses children *by a prior relationship* some part of THEIR SPOUSES (not theirs) massive wealth when said spouse passes away?  Sure, sure, I know, I know - "there's all kinds of reasons", only really, there isn't.  It's gross.