{"id":5194,"date":"2025-04-10T03:07:42","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T03:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/dmxs-ex-wife-doesnt-own-half-his-music-catalog-judge-rules\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T03:07:42","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T03:07:42","slug":"dmxs-ex-wife-doesnt-own-half-his-music-catalog-judge-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/dmxs-ex-wife-doesnt-own-half-his-music-catalog-judge-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"DMX\u2019s Ex-Wife Doesn\u2019t Own Half His Music Catalog, Judge Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tF<\/span>our years after DMX\u2019s tragic 2021 death, a New York judge has ruled that his ex-wife can\u2019t claim a 50 percent stake in the rapper\u2019s music catalog and other intellectual property (IP) rights.<\/p>\n

\n\tTashera Simmons, who was married to the legendary rapper (Earl Simmons) for 16 years, sued his estate last year, claiming she was the rightful owner of half of his copyrights, trademarks and likeness rights. But in a ruling Monday (April 7), a New York judge said otherwise.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe estate is the sole owner of all intellectual property rights [that] Earl Simmons acquired during his marriage to plaintiff, as well as any and all other trademarks and intellectual property rights that belonged to Earl Simmons at the time of his death,\u201d Judge David F. Everett wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe dispute centers on the couple\u2019s 2016 divorce agreement, which mentioned \u201cintellectual property\u201d but didn\u2019t expressly state that Tashera was a co-owner of the copyrights and trademarks. Before his death, DMX insisted the deal only granted her royalty payments \u2014 an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his death.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Monday\u2019s decision, Judge Everett not only ruled that the divorce settlement \u201cdoes not confer ownership,\u201d but that Tashera had essentially waived the right to make that claim. The judge cited the fact that she had raised the issue in previous litigation and had then signed a settlement that made no mention of sharing ownership.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cUnder the circumstances of this case, the court will not, in effect, reopen those proceedings to reinterpret the parties\u2019 2016 settlement agreement, particularly where the party best positioned to contest a contrary interpretation is now deceased,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tDMX, one of the most influential stars in hip-hop history, was married to Tashera through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like \u201cRuff Ryders\u2019 Anthem,\u201d \u201cParty Up (Up In Here)\u201d and \u201cWhat These Bitches Want.\u201d The pair, who share four children, filed for divorce in 2013 and finalized the split in 2016. After years of health issues and struggles with drugs, DMX died in April 2021 from a heart attack.<\/p>\n

\n\tTashera sued last year, claiming that the estate\u2019s administrators (DMX\u2019s ex-fianc\u00e9e Desiree Lindstrom and his daughter by another woman, Sasha Simmons) were improperly disputing her ownership stake. She cited a handwritten excerpt from the divorce settlement, which said she would get half of IP rights, followed by: \u201cwhich shall include, but not be limited to, royalties.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in Monday\u2019s decision, Judge Everett said that language \u201cdoes not unequivocally assign ownership of decedent\u2019s copyrighted works or trademark and, indeed, makes no mention of ownership or title to such property.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cInstead, plaintiff proffers an interpretation of the phrase \u2018intellectual property rights\u2019 to include ownership, but had that phrase meant ownership, then there would be no need to define those rights further in the subsequent clause, all tellingly limited to various categories of royalty payments.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe judge did side with Tashera on one smaller issue by refusing to dismiss her accusations that DMX had breached the divorce agreement by failing to pay $214,000 in child support. That issue is factually disputed by both sides, the judge said, meaning dismissing it would be \u201cpremature.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement to Billboard<\/em> on Wednesday, Tashera\u2019s lead attorney Samuel J. Ferrara <\/strong>criticized a ruling that he said \u201cignores long standing legal principles and voids significant benefits to which Ms. Simmons and her children were and should be entitled.\u201d Ferrara said they were \u201cconsidering all options, including appellate review.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWhile we appreciate the court\u2019s time and attention in coming to this decision, to say that Ms. Simmons and her children are disappointed would be a gross understatement,\u201d Ferrara said. \u201cObviously we disagree with the court\u2019s interpretation of the plain language of the document in question, and it seems that the judge\u2019s ruling does not consider the parties\u2019 intent as evidenced by their conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn her own statement to Billboard<\/em>, lead attorney for DMX\u2019s estate Lisa M. Capone<\/strong> said the ruling \u201censures the preservation of DMX\u2019s legacy.\u201d Ashley Austin<\/strong>, the CEO of Artist Legacy Group, which partnered with DMX\u2019s estate last year, said it was \u201cnot just a legal win\u201d but also \u201ca pivotal step\u201d in protecting the rapper\u2019s legacy: \u201cWe remain committed to working side by side with Desiree and Sasha to protect his rights, navigate the future of the estate, and provide for all of his children.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Four years after DMX\u2019s tragic 2021 death, a New York judge has ruled that his ex-wife can\u2019t claim a 50 percent stake in the rapper\u2019s music catalog and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5195,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2571,5453,3660,4938,423,593,351],"class_list":["post-5194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-catalog","tag-dmxs","tag-doesnt","tag-exwife","tag-judge","tag-music","tag-rules"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5194\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5195"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}