Brian’s Going Back To Court

[HeyJude]

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.

[juggler]

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.  

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.

[Emily]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.  

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.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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.

[Zenobi]

Seems Loren was right.
Poor Brian.

[Emdeeh]

Disagree -- I think this is just lawyer business, not something personal.

[juggler]

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.

[Musketeer]

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?

[Wirestone]

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 — or lack thereof — between Melinda and Marilyn’s daughters, and the fact that Melinda and Brian have five children of their own, I think concern would be prudent.

[Pretty Funky]

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

And it’s one he has just lost…

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

[thetojo]

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 it’s one he has just lost…

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

[HeyJude]

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 didn’t 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.

[Love Thang]

Brian should bring in Rocky Pamplin as a witness

[thetojo]

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 didn’t 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!

[SenorPotatoHead]

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.