Dorit Kemsley is accusing her estranged husband, Paul “PK” Kemsley, of trying to evict their kids in new court documents.
As she also clapped back at his suggestion that she has out-of-control spending habits and suggested he was the one who caused them to be faced with foreclosure, despite reportedly making $2 million per year, the 50-year-old Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star alleged that PK, 58, was trying to render their children “homeless.”
According to court documents filed by Dorit’s lawyer, Samantha Spector, and obtained by TMZ on July 27, Dorit is denying PK’s claim that she has been ignoring their past-due mortgage payments while spending big on luxury items. In fact, Dorit claims PK committed to paying the mortgage for her and their kids in May 2024 when he moved out in lieu of child support, but failed to do so.
After noting that she wasn’t aware that they were in arrears until she received a foreclosure notice, Dorit said she believed PK was making $2 million a year, had more than $400,000 in the bank, and also had sources of revenue outside of the country, noting that the law was never “intended to permit the sleight of hand that PK is weaponizing to render his wife and children homeless.”
Dorit went on to say that PK was a “runaway” spender, accusing him of spending $756,000 in recent months, including $360,000 on travel, $55,000 on clothes, including Hermès, $75,000 on food, $160,000 in other payments to third parties, and $103,000 in cash withdrawals.
While PK recently requested a judge allow him to sell off the home where Dorit and their kids live, Dorit wants his request denied, saying he should use his money to catch up on their missed payments.
Additionally, Dorit wants $21,000 per month in child support, $22,000 per month in spousal support, a $347,000 lump sum for back support, and for him to be sanctioned $40,000 for his court behavior.
Regarding her spending, Dorit said it was to be “camera ready” for RHOBH, revealing that she spent $217,000 for season 15 and $500,000 on previous seasons. She also noted that “many of her charges” were “later refunded or credited back to her account as much of the wardrobe and accessories purchased are returned to the store as they do not fit or are otherwise unsuitable.”
Dorit’s lawyer went on to suggest that PK was faking their financial crisis.
“His financial struggles are invoked only when he is asked to support his wife and dependent children … The evidence, however, demonstrates that this purported financial emergency is not the product of financial necessity, but rather of PK’s own decision-making,” she concluded.