Takeoff’s Mother Secured a Wrongful-Death Settlement. His Father Says the Split Should Be Different

Takeoff’s mother has reportedly won a wrongful-death settlement stemming from his fatal shooting at a bowling alley, but the case is now moving into a new phase: a fight over how the settlement money should be divided between his parents. According to Billboard, the mother obtained the settlement, while Takeoff’s father is seeking a larger share of the proceeds, arguing the split should be different.

The dispute centers on the settlement reached with the owners of the bowling alley where Takeoff was killed. Billboard reports that the parties disagree on the proper allocation of the settlement funds following the wrongful-death case. While the settlement itself has been secured, Billboard says the disagreement over division has become its own contested matter.

Billboard frames the issue as a parent-to-parent disagreement over the settlement terms that followed the shooting. The article describes the conflict as ongoing, indicating that even where liability and compensation were addressed through a settlement, family members can still litigate or renegotiate the distribution of funds.

The underlying incident involves Takeoff, one of the best-known members of Migos, who was shot and killed at the bowling alley. Billboard’s reporting ties the settlement directly to that incident and to the decision to pursue wrongful-death claims against the bowling alley’s owners. In the current round of conflict, the bowling alley settlement is no longer the only legal question.

Instead, the next dispute is financial and procedural, with Takeoff’s father asking that he receive half of the money, according to Billboard. The mother’s position, as described by Billboard, supports a different division of the settlement proceeds, leaving the family at odds even after reaching a resolution with the business defendants.

Because wrongful-death settlements often depend on negotiated terms and on how courts ultimately interpret or enforce them, distribution fights can prolong case timelines and may require further court involvement. Billboard reports that the parents’ disagreement has become central, suggesting that the matter may continue to be contested in court rather than being immediately finalized as a completed settlement.

For the family and for anyone connected to the underlying case, the situation underscores that legal closure on liability does not always mean immediate agreement on how compensation is handled. The settlement may resolve the bowling alley owners’ exposure in the wrongful-death matter, but the reported split dispute indicates that final distribution can remain unresolved while the parties pursue their competing positions.