gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
675268 Posts in 27256 Topics by 4016 Members - Latest Member: J.krefetz July 05, 2022, 09:56:08 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Brian’s Going Back To Court  (Read 4666 times)
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5772


View Profile
« 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 dear….☹️
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9630



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 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 “wow, that’s a lot of money for her to spend on attorneys”, 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.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9763


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 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.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1034


View Profile
« Reply #3 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.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5772


View Profile
« Reply #4 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.

Hmmm…..Considering the number of ex-wives in the Beach Boys circle, things might get very complex and expensive. 😳
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11640


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2022, 05:12:14 PM »

Certainly wasn’t expecting THIS today …
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Tony S
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 724


View Profile
« Reply #6 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
Logged
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 748



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2022, 05:32:15 PM »

I urge you to read the full lawsuit filing
Could you, or someone, post a link?
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5958



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2022, 06:27:27 PM »

https://tmsnrt.rs/3uCTnbh
Logged
Emdeeh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2898



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2022, 08:38:46 PM »

In David's case, he's the one suing for streaming royalties.
Logged
UEF
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 321


Sheriff John-ston


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2022, 04:06:00 AM »


My hat goes off to anyone willing to read through that
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1034


View Profile
« Reply #11 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?

« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 06:23:25 AM by juggler » Logged
37!ws
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1493


All baggudo at my man


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 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.
Logged

Check out my podcasts: Tune X Podcast (tunex.fab4it.com) and Autobiography of a Schnook (SchnookPodcast.com); there are worse things you can do!
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5958



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2022, 06:54:21 AM »

Frankly this seems like a fairly minor dispute. Marilyn’s side thinks they deserve half of Brian’s producer royalties, and Brian’s side disagrees. Marilyn is also asking for more detailed financial accounting, which seems like a no brained given the amounts involved.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9763


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 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.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5734



View Profile
« Reply #15 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.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9763


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 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  Grin). 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.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1034


View Profile
« Reply #17 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  Grin). 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.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9630



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 01:09:31 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9630



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 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.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9630



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2022, 12:29:48 PM »

Frankly this seems like a fairly minor dispute. Marilyn’s side thinks they deserve half of Brian’s producer royalties, and Brian’s 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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 12:54:02 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9630



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 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.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
37!ws
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1493


All baggudo at my man


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 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.
Logged

Check out my podcasts: Tune X Podcast (tunex.fab4it.com) and Autobiography of a Schnook (SchnookPodcast.com); there are worse things you can do!
>PapaLaPap<
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 362


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2022, 12:38:42 AM »

How it all began (as retold by Malakidavid/PapaLaPap:)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
  >A dose: most lips igniting !?   Love     I spilt some soda<> [ Embarrassed (:red)] MARILYN !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  On Rovel' blouse !?                  Beer     Yes!  U'~o', L* !   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Blew !   Or ?.....                      Hug      NO!'n'Y L*: I RAM*d'ER !< 
Logged

Comics/cartooniés
(Fun Fun FUNniés)/Graphic NOVELties
Manga/animé
Bande dessinée
Tegneserié
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9763


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 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  Grin). 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.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.996 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!