The divorce proceedings between reality television star Kandi Burruss and her estranged husband Todd Tucker have taken a contentious turn, with new court documents revealing explosive allegations from both parties about living arrangements, financial responsibilities, and parental duties. In his latest filing, Tucker directly contradicts Burruss's claims that he has been residing rent-free in her guest house, instead asserting that she forcibly removed him from their primary residence without proper notice or legal authority.
According to legal papers obtained by the media, Tucker acknowledges his current residence in the guest house on Burruss's Atlanta property but frames the situation as the result of unilateral action by his soon-to-be ex-wife. He alleges that Burruss directed family members to relocate his personal belongings from the main mansion without his consent and, more significantly, without any court order sanctioning such a move. This characterization stands in stark contrast to Burruss's portrayal of Tucker as essentially squatting on her property and contributing nothing to household expenses.
Tucker's filing emphasizes that his relocation was not voluntary, though he chose not to contest the matter at the time in an effort to maintain domestic tranquility. The producer and businessman states he prioritized preserving peace and stability for their children over asserting his rights to remain in the marital home. This decision, he suggests, has now been twisted against him as evidence of financial irresponsibility when it was actually a gesture of cooperation during a difficult transition.
The geographical distance between the former couple has become a central point of contention. Tucker notes that Burruss has been spending considerable time in New York City working on a Broadway production, leaving him as the primary caregiver for their children in Georgia. This arrangement, he argues, demonstrates his commitment to parental responsibilities while Burruss pursues her professional ambitions. However, Burruss's legal team has previously painted a different picture, suggesting that Tucker's presence in the guest house represents an attempt to maintain a lifestyle he cannot independently afford.
Financial disputes form the core of this latest legal skirmish. Burruss has publicly claimed that Tucker has not contributed a single dollar toward rent, utilities, or other property-related expenses since their separation. She further alleges that he has failed to financially support their children, Ace and Blaze, pointing specifically to two birthday celebrations that occurred after their split in late 2024, for which she says she paid all costs.
Tucker offers a different narrative about their financial history. He contends that throughout their marriage, both parties contributed funds to a joint bank account designated for household and family expenses. Following their separation, Tucker alleges that Burruss explicitly informed him she would cease using this shared account and would assume responsibility for all bills herself. He characterizes this as a self-created financial arrangement that she is now attempting to reframe as evidence of his financial instability or neglect.
In his court filing, Tucker writes, "[Burruss] now attempts to reframe and weaponize this self-created financial arrangement as evidence of financial instability or neglect, while the timing and sequence of events demonstrate otherwise." This statement encapsulates his defense strategy: portraying Burruss's financial claims as a manipulative tactic rather than legitimate grievances.
The custody battle has escalated dramatically as these financial and housing disputes unfold. Tucker is now requesting that the court grant him primary legal and physical custody of their children on a temporary basis until a permanent parenting plan can be established. His argument rests on two main pillars: what he describes as Burruss's "ongoing physical absence" from the children's daily lives and her alleged reliance on third-party caregivers.
Tucker suggests that Burruss's Broadway commitments have created a situation where she is not consistently present for Ace and Blaze, while he has remained in Georgia specifically to provide stable care. He implies that her accusations against him are a strategic distraction designed to shift focus away from her own parental availability. This represents a significant escalation from the initial divorce filing, where Burruss requested joint custody.
The timeline of custody requests reveals a pattern of increasing hostility. When Burruss first filed for divorce in November 2025, she sought joint custody of the children. However, after Tucker filed his own request for sole custody, she amended her filing to seek sole custody as well. This tit-for-tat dynamic illustrates how each legal maneuver by one party prompts a more aggressive response from the other, potentially complicating any future co-parenting relationship.
The public nature of their dispute, given Burruss's status as a star of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta," adds another layer of complexity. Both parties are aware that their allegations and counter-allegations will receive extensive media coverage, which may influence their legal strategies. Tucker appears to be positioning himself as the more stable, present parent, while Burruss seems focused on establishing financial boundaries and protecting her assets.
Legal experts note that in Georgia, where the divorce is proceeding, courts typically favor arrangements that maintain stability for children and encourage continued relationships with both parents. Tucker's argument that he has been the primary on-the-ground parent during Burruss's Broadway engagement could carry weight, but only if he can substantiate his claims about her absence. Conversely, Burruss's financial documentation showing she has borne all expenses could undermine Tucker's credibility if he cannot prove their alleged agreement about bill payment.
The guest house situation itself presents a unique legal question. While Burruss owns the property, Tucker, as her spouse, may have certain marital rights to the residence until the divorce is finalized. His claim that he was removed without court approval could potentially strengthen his position regarding temporary housing arrangements, though it does not necessarily entitle him to remain there indefinitely without contributing to expenses.
As this high-profile divorce continues to unfold, the focus remains squarely on what arrangement will serve the best interests of their children. Both parents have presented themselves as the more suitable primary caregiver, but the court will ultimately need to weigh evidence about each party's involvement in the children's daily lives, financial contributions, and ability to provide a stable environment. The financial weaponization and housing dispute are likely to be viewed through the lens of how these issues impact the children's wellbeing rather than as isolated grievances between the adults.
The case highlights the challenges that arise when a marriage dissolves under public scrutiny, with every allegation and response subject to interpretation by fans, media, and eventually a judge. For now, Tucker remains in the guest house, caring for the children in Georgia, while Burruss continues her Broadway work in New York, setting the stage for a custody decision that could reshape their family dynamic for years to come.