Legal News
Page: 76
With Taylor Swift hiring one of her longtime lawyers as the new general counsel for her 13 Management, Billboard dug into the many cases he’s handled for the superstar – including a bizarre trademark battle with an “Evermore” theme park and Taylor’s high-profile assault accusations against a radio DJ.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
As reported Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal, Swift’s company is set to hire Douglas Baldridge, a veteran litigator at the major Washington, D.C.-based law firm law firm Venable, as the new top attorney for her company in the fall. He’s replacing Jay Schaudies, who the Journal says is retiring.
Though he’s technically a new hire at 13 Management, Baldridge and Swift are hardly strangers. From his position as outside counsel at Venable, Baldridge has repped Swift and her company for years in a number of major lawsuits.
His work for the star first made headlines in 2017, when he represented her in a high-profile battle with a Denver radio DJ named David Mueller, who Swift claimed had groped her at photoshoot. Mueller sued Swift for defamation, claiming her accusations were false and had cost him his job. Taylor quickly countersued, accusing Mueller of civil assault and battery over the incident.
At a jury trial in August 2017, Baldridge was direct with jurors in his closing statement: “The guy did it. Don’t be fooled. Don’t be snookered.” After just four hours of deliberations, the jury agreed – rejecting Mueller’s allegations and holding him liable for assault and battery. After the verdict was read, Taylor blinked back tears and mouthed “thank you” to Baldridge and her other attorneys.
His work for Swift dates back even further, though. In 2014, Baldridge and other Venable lawyers defended the star in a lawsuit filed against her by a small apparel company called Lucky 13, which accused Swift of infringing its trademarks by selling T-shirts featuring that same phrase. After an extended battle over whether the star would be forced to sit for a deposition, the case ended in a settlement the next year.
One of Baldridge’s biggest recent wins for Taylor came in 2021, when a Utah fantasy theme park called Evermore sued her for trademark infringement, claiming her smash-hit acoustic album was threatening to “crowd out” its own brand name.
But Swift’s lawyers quickly flipped the script. They filed a countersuit claiming it was the theme park that was in the wrong, for allegedly neglecting to pay royalties for playing Taylor’s songs for their customers – not just over loud speakers, but with live performances by the theme park’s character performers. They argued the park had even sought out retroactive licenses to cover up its wrongdoing.
“Defendants are making a thinly-veiled attempt to fabricate a record to justify and retroactively authorize their intentional infringement that has gone unabated since Evermore Park opened in 2018,” Baldridge wrote in that complaint. “However, a cover-up attempt now does not and cannot erase years of willful and knowing infringement.”
A month later, the park dropped its case with no money changing hands.
Baldridge also represented Swift in the epic copyright case over the lyrics to “Shake It Off,” but as part of a larger defense that also heavily featured veteran music copyright litigator Peter Anderson of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine. That case ended in a settlement in December.
As he gears up to step into the general counsel role, Baldridge is currently defending the star from another copyright lawsuit, this one filed over a companion book for her album Lover. In that case, a woman named Teresa La Dart claims Taylor stole key elements of the book’s design from her own self-published book of poetry.
In a February response to those allegations, Baldridge didn’t hold back – arguing that the case should be dismissed immediately because it failed in every way possible: “This is a lawsuit that never should have been filed, as it is legally and factually baseless.”
LONDON — When the European Union announced plans to regulate artificial intelligence in 2021, legislators started focusing on “high risk” systems that could threaten human rights, such as biometric surveillance and predictive policing. Amid increasing concern among artists and rights holders about the potential impact of AI on the creative sector, however, EU legislators are also now looking at the intersection of this new technology and copyright.
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which is now being negotiated among politicians in different branches of government, is the first comprehensive legislation in the world to regulate AI. In addition to banning “intrusive and discriminatory uses” of the technology, the current version of the legislation addresses generative AI, mandating that companies disclose content that is created by AI to differentiate it from works authored by humans. Other provisions in the law would require companies that use generative AI to provide details of copyrighted works, including music, on which they trained their systems. (The AI Act is a regulation, so it would pass directly into law in all 27 member states.)
Music executives began paying closer attention to the legislation after the November launch of ChatGPT. In April, around the time that “Heart on My Sleeve,” a track that featured AI-powered imitations of vocals by Drake and The Weeknd, drove home the issue posed by AI, industry lobbyists convinced lawmakers to add the transparency provisions.
So far, big technology companies, including Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, have publicly stated that they, too, support AI regulation, at least in the abstract. Behind the scenes, however, multiple music executives tell Billboard that technology lobbyists are trying to weaken these transparency provisions by arguing that such obligations could put European AI developers at a competitive disadvantage.
“They want codes of conduct” — as opposed to laws — “and very low forms of regulation,” says John Phelan, director general of international music publishing trade association ICMP.
Another argument is that summarizing training data “would basically come down to providing a summary of half, or even the entire, internet,” says Boniface de Champris, Brussels-based policy manager at the Computer and Communications Industry Association Europe, which counts Alphabet, Apple, Amazon and Meta among its members. “Europe’s existing copyright rules already cover AI applications sufficiently.”
In May, Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT developer OpenAI, emerged as the highest-profile critic of the EU’s proposals, accusing it of “overregulating” the nascent business. He even said that his company, which is backed by Microsoft, might consider leaving Europe if it could not comply with the legislation, although he walked back this statement a few days later. OpenAI and other companies lobbied — successfully — to have an early draft of the legislation changed so that “general-purpose AI systems” like ChatGPT would no longer be considered high risk and thus subject to stricter rules, according to documents Time magazine obtained from the European Commission. (OpenAI didn’t respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.)
The lobbying over AI echoes some of the other political conflicts between media and technology companies — especially the one over the EU Copyright Directive, which passed in 2019. While that “was framed as YouTube versus the music industry, the narrative has now switched to AI,” says Sophie Goossens, a partner at global law firm Reed Smith. “But the argument from rights holders is much the same: They want to stop tech companies from making a living on the backs of their content.”
Several of the provisions in the Copyright Directive deal with AI, including an exception in the law for text- and data-mining of copyrighted content, such as music, in certain cases. Another exception allows scientific and research institutions to engage in text- and data-mining on works to which they have lawful access.
So far, the debate around generative AI in the United States has focused on whether performers can use state laws on right of publicity to protect their distinctive voices and images — the so-called “output side” of generative AI. In contrast, both the Copyright Directive and the AI Act address the “input side,” meaning ways that rights holders can either stop AI systems from using their content for training purposes or limit which ones can in order to license that right.
Another source of tension created by the Copyright Directive is the potential for blurred boundaries between research institutions and commercial businesses. Microsoft, for example, refers to its Muzic venture as “a research project on AI music,” while Google regularly partners with independent research, academic and scientific bodies on technology developments, including AI. To close potential loopholes, Phelan wants lawmakers to strengthen the bill’s transparency provisions, requiring specific details of all music accessed for training, instead of the “summary” that’s currently called for. IFPI, the global recorded-music trade organization, regards the transparency provisions as “a meaningful step in the right direction,” according to Lodovico Benvenuti, managing director of its European office, and he says he hopes lawmakers won’t water that down.
The effects of the AI Act will be felt far outside Europe, partly because they will apply to any company that does business in the 27-country bloc and partly because it will be the first comprehensive set of rules on the use of the technology. In the United States, the Biden administration has met with technology executives to discuss AI but has yet to lay out a legislation strategy. On June 22, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that he was working on “exceedingly ambitious” bipartisan legislation on the topic, but political divides in the United States as the next presidential election approaches would make passage difficult. China unveiled its own draft laws in April, although other governments may be reluctant to look at legislation there as a model.
“The rest of the world is looking at the EU because they are leading the way in terms of how to regulate AI,” says Goossens. “This will be a benchmark.”
Marilyn Manson will plead no contest to blowing his nose on a videographer at a 2019 concert in New Hampshire, according to a filing by his attorney.
The rocker, whose legal name is Brian Warner, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of simple assault stemming from the encounter at the Bank of New Hampshire Pavilion in Gilford on Aug. 19, 2019.
A notice of intent filed Monday (July 17) says that Manson is expected to plead no contest to only one charge, and that prosecutors would dismiss the other in the fully negotiated plea. A no contest plea means Manson will not contest the charge and does not admit guilt.
Manson would face a sentence of a $1,200 fine with part of it suspended and 20 hours of community service within six months. Manson also would need to remain arrest-free and notify local police of any New Hampshire performances for two years.
A judge would have to accept the plea, which is expected to be entered Thursday (July 20) in Belknap County Superior Court. That’s in place of a final pretrial hearing that was scheduled in advance of his planned Aug. 7 trial.
It’s not clear whether Manson would be required to be in court or be allowed to participate via video. His lawyer, Kent Barker, said Tuesday it would be up to the judge.
According to a police affidavit, Manson approached videographer Susan Fountain in the venue’s stage pit area, put his face close to her camera and spit a “big lougee” at her. She was struck on both hands with saliva. He also is accused approaching her a second time, blowing his nose on her arm and hands.
Prosecutors planned to dismiss the charge stemming from the first encounter, according to the notice. Manson initially pleaded not guilty in 2021. His lawyer had said at the time that the type of filming Fountain was doing commonly exposes videographers to “incidental contact” with bodily fluids.
“The defendant’s performance for the past twenty years are well known to include shocking and evocative antics similar to those that occurred here,” Barker wrote. “The alleged victim consented to exposing herself to potential contact with sweat, saliva and phlegm in close quarters.”
Barker also had said Manson planned to argue that any contact related to spitting or sneezing was unintentional. If Manson had gone to trial on the charges, each could have resulted in a jail sentence of less than a year and a $2,000 fine if convicted. Manson also has faced abuse accusations unrelated to the New Hampshire allegation in recent years. He has denied wrongdoing.
In May, a California judge threw out key sections of Manson’s lawsuit against his former fiancee, Westworld actor Evan Rachel Wood, claiming she fabricated public allegations that he sexually and physically abused her during their relationship and encouraged other women to do the same.
Manson’s suit, filed last year, alleges that Wood and another woman named as a defendant, Illma Gore, defamed Manson, intentionally caused him emotional distress and derailed his career in music, TV and film. Several women have sued Manson in recent years with allegations of sexual and other abuse. Most have been dismissed or settled, including a suit filed by Game of Thrones actor Esme Bianco.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Authorities in Nevada confirmed Tuesday (July 18) that they served a search warrant this week in connection with the long-unsolved killing of rapper Tupac Shakur nearly 30 years ago.
Shakur, one of the most prolific figures in hip-hop, was killed on the night of Sept. 7, 1996, in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas. He was 25.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said the search warrant was executed Monday in the nearby city of Henderson.
Department spokesperson Aden OcampoGomez said he could not provide further details on the latest development in the case, including whether it was served at a home or a business, citing the open investigation.
Nevada does not have a statute of limitations for prosecuting homicide cases.
Tupac was gunned down inside a black vehicle stopped at a red light near the Las Vegas Strip. Shot multiple times, the rapper was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he died a week later.
Largely considered one of the most influential and versatile rappers of all time, the six-time Grammy-nominated Shakur has had five No. 1 albums: 1995’s Me Against the World, 1996’s All Eyez on Me and three posthumous releases: 1996’s The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, which was recorded under the name Makaveli, as well as 2001’s Until the End of Time and 2004’s Loyal to the Game.
In 2017, he was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame by Snoop Dogg. In June of this year, the rapper received a posthumous star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
His professional music career only lasted five years, but Tupac secured 21 Billboard Hot 100 hits, including two top 10s: “Dear Mama/Old School” in 1995 and his best-known track, 1996’s “How Do U Want It/California Love,” featuring K-Ci and JoJo. The latter spent two weeks at the No. 1 spot on the Hot 100 from his final studio album and Death Row Records debut, All Eyez on Me.
According to Luminate, Tupac has sold 33 million albums (41 million when including track sale and streaming equivalents). The rapper’s on-demand video and audio streams total 10.1 billion.
He’s also had some museum exhibits that paid homage to his life including “Tupac Shakur. Wake Me When I’m Free,” which opened in 2021.
LONDON (AP) — Kevin Spacey’s lawyers enlisted the help of an A-list star Monday in his sexual assault trial, calling on Elton John and his husband David Furnish to cast doubt on one of the Oscar winner’s accusers at the end of the defense case. John appeared briefly in the London court by video link […]
Jimmie Allen is fighting back against a pair of lawsuits filed this spring that accused the country star of sexual assault, denying all the allegations and countersuing both women — claiming that one of them defamed him and that the other illegally swiped his cellphone.
In documents filed Thursday (July 13) in Nashville federal court, Allen, 38, lodged his first formal responses to the two abuse lawsuits, which have seen the once-rising country star dropped from his label and removed from festival lineups. The first case claims he repeatedly assaulted an unnamed “Jane Doe” on his management team; the second claims he assaulted another woman in a Las Vegas hotel room and secretly recorded it.
Allen’s lawyers went beyond simply denying those allegations in Thursday’s filings, bringing a countersuit against each accuser and seeking unspecified monetary damages. In the case of Allen’s former day-to-day manager, the attorneys claim that she defamed him by making “deliberate, intentional, malicious, and willful” statements to Variety beyond what is included in the lawsuit. Variety broke the news of her lawsuit in early May.
“Throughout the Variety article, Jane Doe made several untruthful statements which painted Allen and Doe’s consensual affair as nonconsensual sexual misconduct,” his lawyers claim. “Allen’s reputation and relationships within the entertainment industry have also been severely damaged as a result Jane Doe’s statements in the Variety article.”
(Variety, which is owned by the same parent company as Billboard, is not named as a defendant or accused of any wrongdoing.)
In responding to the second lawsuit, in which the woman claims that Allen surreptitiously filmed their sexual encounter, his lawyers say that she had explicitly consented to the recording — and that she then unfairly took his phone with her when she left the hotel. In technical terms, they accuse her of “conversion,” a civil tort similar to theft that involves someone taking property that doesn’t belong to them.
“By taking his camera phone without permission, Jane Doe 2 wrongfully exerted a distinct act of dominion over Allen’s personal property,” his lawyers write.
The attorney representing both of Allen’s Jane Doe accusers, Elizabeth Fegan of the law firm Fegan Scott, did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday morning.
In a statement, Allen tells Billboard that he has “engaged with a legal team to proceed with an appropriate course of action,” saying he has done so in order to “protect my reputation and refute these claims that have caused severe damage to my family, mental health, and business.”
“As the son and brother of rape victims, and the father of daughters, these false claims are extremely hurtful to me and everyone around me,” Allen said. “These false allegations have caused me to lose a vast number of business and endorsement opportunities that I worked extremely hard for. These false allegations have also not only harmed me, but have caused severe financial damage to my band, my team, and their families.”
A Rapid Fall
In the wake of the two lawsuits, Allen’s once-flourishing career has cratered.
After signing with BMG’s Stony Creek/BBR imprint in 2017, Allen’s first two singles, “Best Shot” and “Make Me Want To,” reached No. 1 on Billboard’s Country Airplay chart, while he scored a third No. 1 in 2021 with “Freedom Was a Highway” (with Brad Paisley). “Down Home,” the first single from his 2022 album, Tulip Drive, reached No. 2. He also performed for Garth Brooks at the superstar’s Kennedy Center Honors induction in 2021, and with Elton John on the legend’s 2021 album The Lockdown Sessions.
But following the accusations, his label, booking agency (UTA), former publicist (Full Coverage Communications) and management company (The Familie) have all suspended or dropped him. His live appearances have also dried up, including a June 11 performance during CMA Fest and several other summer festival gigs.
In addition to the career fallout, Allen has also separated from his wife, Alexis Gale, who is pregnant with their third child. The couple announced the news on social media, just weeks before the first lawsuit was filed and the accusations were made public.
That first case, filed on May 11, alleged that Allen had “manipulated and used his power” over the plaintiff, who was employed by his then-management company Wide Open Management, in order to “sexually harass and abuse her” over a period of 18 months from 2020 to 2022.
“Plaintiff expressed in words and actions that Jimmie Allen’s conduct was unwelcome, including pushing him away, sitting where he could not reach her, telling him she was uncomfortable and no, and crying uncontrollably,” the woman’s lawyers wrote in the complaint. “However, Allen made clear that plaintiff’s job was dependent on her staying silent about his conduct.”
Allen Responds
In Thursday’s response to those claims, Allen tells a different story — one of “a consensual sexual relationship” in which encounters were “initiated by both Allen and Doe,” an affair that he says he ended in the fall of 2022 to “focus on repairing his relationship with his wife.” He says the first time he heard any claim about “improper conduct” was in November 2022, when he was contacted by her attorney.
In counter-suing for defamation, Allen’s lawyers focus on Doe’s statements made to Variety rather than the actual claims in her lawsuit — likely because it’s harder to bring such claims over statements made as part of a judicial proceeding. The article, Allen says, contained “several pieces of information that were not included in her complaint,” as well as statements that “disparaged” him, including calling him a “threat.”
“The statements … caused great damage to Allen, including impairment of his reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering,” his lawyers write. In technical terms, they also accuse Doe of invasion of privacy, inflicting emotional distress, and interference with business relations.
The second case against Allen, filed on June 9, was brought by a woman identified as Jane Doe 2, who accused him of battery, assault and other wrongdoing over a July 2022 incident at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas. Though she had “willingly joined Allen in the bedroom,” she claimed she had “repeatedly told him she did not want him to ejaculate inside her” because she was not on birth control, but that Allen had done so anyway.
The June lawsuit also claimed that, after the sexual encounter, Doe 2 discovered a cell phone in a closet of the hotel room, “focused on the bed, recording the scene.” She alleged that she had “not consented to being recorded” and that, after failing to convince Allen to allow her to unlock the phone to delete the recordings, she had taken it with her and later passed it along to the Las Vegas Police Department.
In his response to that lawsuit on Thursday, Allen admits to having “unprotected sex” with Doe, but claims that he “did not ejaculate during the encounter.” He also acknowledged recording the incident but, crucially, alleges that he secured her explicit permission to do so while the pair kissed on a hotel balcony.
“Before the encounter escalated further, Allen asked Jane Doe 2 if it was OK for him to set up his camera phone to record their encounter. Jane Doe 2 agreed,” Allen’s lawyers wrote of the incident. “Allen left the balcony and set up his camera phone in plain view at the foot of the bed. Allen and Jane Doe 2 began to engage in a consensual sexual encounter in view of the camera phone.”
When he awoke to find that Doe 2 had “left the hotel room with his camera phone,” Allen claims that he texted her, to which she allegedly responded that she “did not approve of him recording their encounter.” When she “demanded the passcode to Allen’s camera phone” so that she could further delete the recording, he says he declined to offer it because the phone “contained several pieces of confidential personal and business information.” He says he offered to “delete the video to her satisfaction” if she returned the phone, but that she did not do so.
“Allen still does not have possession of the camera phone,” his lawyers write.
(When the second case was filed in June, a spokesperson for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department [LVMPD] confirmed to Billboard that “a report was completed” over the incident, but did not provide any additional information. A request for any public records linked to the report was unsuccessful.)
Former Manager Wants Out
Allen wasn’t the only defendant to file his response to the abuse lawsuits this week. On Tuesday, his former management company Wide Open Music filed a motion seeking to be dismissed from the first case, which claimed the company did not do enough to protect Allen’s day-to-day manager from his abusive behavior and had then fired her when she complained about it.
In its response, attorneys for Wide Open Music (which parted with Allen in October 2022) expressed dismay at the woman’s allegations about Allen’s conduct, but said the company itself could not be held legally responsible.
“Undoubtedly, if the actions she claims Allen took against her actually occurred, they are deplorable and clearly inappropriate,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “Despite the nature of the allegations, however, Plaintiff has not stated any plausible claims … that [Wide Open Music] should be held liable, either for its client’s misconduct or independently of it.”
Following this week’s new filings, the Jane Doe plaintiffs will file their own responses in the months ahead, both to Allen’s new accusations and to Wide Open Music’s motion to be dismissed from the case. The case will then head toward more litigation and an eventual jury trial, but it could be years before such a courtroom showdown is reached.
In his statement Thursday, Allen seemed intent on getting to such a trial: “As the legal process runs its course, I look forward to the opportunity to clear my name.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Selena Quintanilla‘s father, Abraham Quintanilla Jr., is suing Los Angeles-based Catalina Classic Cruises over an “unauthorized” live tribute in honor of the late Tejano star. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news According to the lawsuit, filed Monday (July 10) in the Central District of California, Selena’s father […]
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Lady Gaga defeats a lawsuit claiming she owes a $500,000 reward to a woman convicted over the 2021 gunpoint robbery of the star’s French bulldogs; Kanye West faces another lawsuit about allegations of unsafe conditions at his Donda Academy; Diddy makes new racism accusations in an unsealed version of his tequila lawsuit; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Lady Gaga Doesn’t Have To Pay Her Dog-Napper
When Jennifer McBride sued Lady Gaga in February, demanding that the star pay out on a $500,000 reward she’d offered for the return of her stolen French bulldogs, McBride left out one very small detail: that she herself had been convicted of a crime over the violent 2021 robbery.
McBride was one of five people charged in connection with the Feb. 2021 gunpoint dog-napping, in which Gaga’s dog walker, Ryan Fischer, was shot and nearly killed. Though she returned the dogs days after the incident and claimed she’d found them tied to a pole, police later connected McBride to the thieves and she eventually pleaded out to one count of receiving stolen property.
But in a chutzpah-laden civil lawsuit, McBride claimed that Gaga made a binding “unilateral” offer to pay the reward in return for the safe return of the dogs, citing media reports that the offer would be paid with “no questions asked.” McBride said that regardless of her role in the crime, she had simply held up her end of a valid contract.
Gaga’s attorneys begged to differ, arguing last month that it would be absurd to allow McBride to “profit from her participation in a crime” even if she had eventually returned the dogs: “The law does not allow a person to commit a crime and then profit from it,” Gaga’s lawyers wrote.
In a ruling on Monday (July 10), Judge Holly J. Fujie agreed with those arguments, dismissing the case. To find out why, go read our entire story, which contains a link to the judge’s full written ruling.
Other top stories this week…
MORE DONDA ACADEMY ACCUSATIONS – Kanye West was hit with another lawsuit about allegedly unsafe conditions at his Donda Academy, including the bizarre accusation that the school lacked windows because the embattled rapper “did not like glass.” The case came months after a separate case that claimed the rapper fed students only sushi and that he was “afraid of stairs.”
NEW CLAIMS IN DIDDY TEQUILA CASE – An unredacted version of Diddy’s lawsuit against Diageo revealed new details about his allegations that the spirits giant unfairly treated his DeLeon Tequila as a “Black brand.” Among the new accusations was a claim that Diageo developed a watermelon flavor despite Diddy’s protests about the racist history and negative connotations with watermelon in brands aimed at Black consumers.
DABABY DROPPED FROM ‘LEVITATING’ CASE – The rapper was voluntarily dismissed from a copyright lawsuit accusing him and Dua Lipa of ripping off their smash hit “Levitating” from a 1979 song called “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and a 1980 song called “Don Diablo.” The rapper had been named because he was featured on a popular remix of Lipa’s smash hit, which spent more than a year on the Hot 100.
CHALLENGE TO TIKTOK BAN – TikTok and a group of five users asked a federal judge to block Montana from enforcing its first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app from the state, warning that the law is unconstitutional and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect in January.
ARETHA FRANKLIN ESTATE BATTLE – A jury in Michigan decided that a handwritten document created by singer Aretha Franklin in 2014 and found in her couch after her 2018 death was a valid will, overriding a 2010 will that was discovered around the same time in a locked cabinet.
A document handwritten by singer Aretha Franklin and found in her couch after her 2018 death is a valid Michigan will, a jury said Tuesday, a critical turn in a dispute that has turned her sons against each other.
It’s a victory for Kecalf Franklin and Edward Franklin whose lawyers had argued that papers dated 2014 should override a 2010 will that was discovered around the same time in a locked cabinet at the Queen of Soul’s home in suburban Detroit.
The jury deliberated less than an hour after a brief trial that started Monday. After the verdict was read, Aretha Franklin’s grandchildren stepped forward from the first row to hug Kecalf and Edward.
“I’m very, very happy. I just wanted my mother’s wishes to be adhered to,” Kecalf Franklin said. “We just want to exhale right now. It’s been a long five years for my family, my children.”
Aretha Franklin was a global star for decades, known especially for hits like “Think,” “I Say a Little Prayer” and “Respect.” She did not leave behind a formal, typewritten will when she died five years ago at age 76.
But documents, with scribbles and hard-to-decipher passages, emerged in 2019 when a niece scoured the home for records.
In closing arguments, lawyers for Kecalf and Edward Franklin said the fact that the 2014 papers were found in a notebook in couch cushions did not make them less significant.
“You can take your will and leave it on the kitchen counter. It’s still your will,” Charles McKelvie told the jury.
Another lawyer, Craig Smith, pointed to the first line of the document, which was displayed on four large posters in front of the jury.
“Says right here: ‘This is my will.’ She’s speaking from the grave, folks,” Smith said of Franklin.
Kecalf and Edward had teamed up against brother Ted White II, who favored the 2010 will. White’s attorney, Kurt Olson, noted the earlier will was under lock and key. He said it was much more important than papers found in a couch.
“We were here to see what the jury would rule. We’ll live with it,” Olson said after the verdict.
The jury found that the 2014 version was signed by Aretha Franklin, who put a smiley face in the letter ‘A.’
Olson said there still could be discussions with the judge over whether some provisions of the 2010 will should be fulfilled.
Franklin’s estate managers have been paying bills, settling millions in tax debts and generating income through music royalties and other intellectual property. The will dispute, however, has been unfinished business.
There are differences between the 2010 and 2014 versions, though they both appear to indicate that Franklin’s four sons would share income from music and copyrights.
But under the 2014 will, Kecalf Franklin and grandchildren would get his mother’s main home in Bloomfield Hills, which was valued at $1.1 million when she died but is worth much more today.
The older will said Kecalf, 53, and Edward Franklin, 64, “must take business classes and get a certificate or a degree” to benefit from the estate. That provision is not in the 2014 version.
White, who played guitar with Aretha Franklin, testified against the 2014 will, saying his mother typically would get important documents done “conventionally and legally” and with assistance from an attorney. He did not immediately comment after the verdict.
The sharpest remarks of the trial came from Smith, who represented Edward Franklin. He told the jury White “wants to disinherit his two brothers. Teddy wants it all.”
Kecalf Franklin sat near White during the trial but they did not appear to speak to each other.
“I love my brother with all my heart,” Kecalf said outside court when asked if there was a rift.
Aretha Franklin had a fourth son, Clarence Franklin. He lives under guardianship in an assisted living center and did not participate in the trial.
A Michigan judge narrowed the issues Monday in a dispute over Aretha Franklin’s estate, saying the only task for jurors is to decide whether a 2014 document handwritten by the Queen of Soul and found in couch cushions can be accepted as a valid will.
The stipulation was made by attorneys for Franklin’s sons before a jury was seated in Oakland County Probate Court.
Franklin died in 2018 at age 76. But five years later, the music superstar’s estate remains unsettled. A son, Ted White II, believes a 2010 handwritten will should mainly control the estate, but two other sons, Kecalf Franklin and Edward Franklin, are in favor of a 2014 document.
Both were found in 2019, months after Franklin died. The 2014 document was under cushions at Franklin’s home in suburban Detroit.
The brothers sat shoulder to shoulder behind their lawyers in Judge Jennifer Callaghan’s courtroom. Another brother, Clarence Franklin, is under a guardianship and apparently is not participating in the trial.
There are differences between the documents, though they both appear to indicate the sons would share income from music and copyrights, which seems to make that issue less contentious than a few others.
The 2014 version crossed out White’s name as executor and has Kecalf Franklin in his place. Kecalf Franklin and grandchildren would get his mother’s main home in Bloomfield Hills, which was valued at $1.1 million when she died but is worth much more today.
For five years, Aretha Franklin’s estate has been handled at different times by three executors, known under Michigan estate law as a personal representative. A niece, Sabrina Owens, quit in 2020, citing a “rift” among the sons.
The last public accounting filed in March showed the estate had income of $3.9 million during the previous 12-month period and a similar amount of spending, including more than $900,000 in legal fees to various firms.
Overall assets were pegged at $4.1 million, mostly cash and real estate, though Franklin’s creative works and intellectual property were undervalued with just a nominal $1 figure.