The legal drama between Tony Bennett‘s children continues, with his oldest son exposing his dark past to support arguments.

The rift within the music icon’s family began last year when his daughters, Antonia and Johanna Bennett, accused their older brother, Danny Bennett, of abusing his trustee rights before and after their father’s death.

The women claimed their sibling had engaged in “multiple conflicting fiduciary capacities,” forcing them to demand a detailed accounting of Tony Bennett’s estate. However, the oldest Bennett child refused to comply with their wishes, arguing that they had no right to view the estate’s expenditures.

According to court documents, Danny recently responded to his sisters’ demand for their late father’s estate spending. He rejected their request, stressing that he played a significant role in Tony’s successful career, especially his unforgettable comeback.

You may be interested

In Other Trending News...Kehlani Sparks Massive Fireworks Show in Feud Over Alleged Anti-Semitism

In Other Trending News..."Star-Crossed Box Office Flop: Ryan Reynolds Spills the Cosmic Tea on His Biggest Career Blunder"

Danny claimed Tony credited him for turning his life around “after he hit rock bottom in the late 1970s, including a near-fatal cocaine overdose and financial disaster that caused the IRS to seize his home in Los Angeles.”

The RPM Productions founder served as his father’s manager from the 1970s until his 2021 retirement, a position he argued Tony credited him for when he won a comeback Grammy Award in 1995. His lawyer echoed similar sentiments in the documents obtained by In Touch, claiming:

“Tony considered Danny to be one of his greatest assets. In addition to naming Danny cotrustee, Tony also retained Danny to be his personal manager and his business manager.”

Besides helping Tony turn his career around, Danny noted he stepped up after the Jazz icon could not go on tour and negotiated a lucrative deal on his behalf. He signed an agreement to sell the singer’s memorabilia, music royalty stream, and rights to his likeness and publicity.

The contract, known as the “Iconoclast Deal,” included a purchase price and a stream of income for a limited period from various projects. Danny added that he was “fully transparent” with his sisters regarding the deal’s details, including the generated income.

As for Antonia and Johanna’s request for the estate’s accounting, Danny argued that they had no legal rights to view the finances before and after their father’s death. His attorney mirrored his stance, noting:

“It simply makes no sense to go to the expense and effort of an accounting for an estate that has been open for barely a year.”

Antonia and Johanna did not dispute Danny’s role in revamping their late father’s image but called him out for engaging in “self-dealing” before and after Tony’s death. They claimed he provided “conflicting financial statements” about the estate.

Their allegations continued with claims of “unexplained expenses totaling many hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more).” Additionally, there were “significant distributions, gifts, and other payments that Danny made directly to himself or for his own benefit while wearing every fiduciary hat possible.”

Antonia and Johanna claimed Danny’s actions before Tony’s death “were anything but ordinary and raise serious concerns about the Post-Death Period.”

According to their complaint, he “acted in multiple, conflicting fiduciary capacities for an extended period prior to Tony’s death and took (for himself and his children) significant funds from the Family Trust.”

Tony’s daughters noted that Danny had publicized his diminished capacity before his death. They argued that during this phase, their father had been unable to act as a co-trustee, making their brother the sole trustee of the Family Trust without oversight.

Antonia and Johanna stressed that this was wrong because their father created the trust for his four children and intended for it to treat them equally. “It is critical that all beneficiaries of the Family Trust can examine Danny’s conduct to ensure Tony’s wishes are fulfilled.”

The Bennett children include a second son, Dae, who is not participating in the legal battle. The accounting drama began in June 2024, a year after Tony’s death in July 2023, with The Blast reporting that Danny had initially tried to delay a court hearing.

Last year, Danny implored the court for an extension in the accounting drama because his attorney was newly retained and unfamiliar with the case. The legal rep also noted that he and his partner had upcoming vacations and could not respond to the Bennet sisters’ petition.

However, Antonia and Johanna rejected Danny’s request, insisting they were owed a detailed accounting of their late father’s estate. They dropped a counteroffer, noting they would agree to an extension if their brother provided the requested financial details within 45 days.

The sisters’ fight for the estate’s accounting began over significant disparities in Tony’s finances. They believed their father amassed over $100 million in the past 15 years, yet his estate was only worth $7 million after his death — a sum they argued deserved clarity.

Will Tony Bennett’s children be able to settle their differences amicably?