‘Suspicious Behavior’: ‘Selling Sunset’ Star Chelsea Lazkani’s Estranged Husband Demands Exclusive Access to Their LA Mansion After Late Grandma’s Scarf Goes Missing
Chelsea's ex is firing back in court.
April 3 2024, Published 9:05 a.m. ET
Selling Sunset star Chelsea Lazkani’s estranged husband Jeff asked the court to deny her spousal support request and give him exclusive access to their LA mansion — after several items of his personal property went missing.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, Jeff fired back at the divorce petition filed by Chelsea earlier this month. He agreed the divorce was necessary and was on board with splitting custody — but objected to any form of spousal support.
Chelsea and Jeff had been together for over 7 years.
Chelsea with her Selling Sunset co-stars.
In her petition, the reality star cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the split. The exes got hitched in 2017 after meeting on Tinder. Chelsea listed the date of separation as “to be determined.”
The exes share two young children — 3-year-old Melia and 5-year-old Maddox. Chelsea proposed a joint custody agreement with her ex.
Chelsea demanded spousal support.
Chelsea asked the court to award her spousal support but wanted her ex’s ability to collect support terminated. Her petition did not mention a prenuptial agreement.
In his response, Jeff asked the court to order both parties to pay their own legal fees. He filed a separate motion that asked the court for exclusive use of their Manhattan Beach mansion.
He wanted an order that restraining Chelsea from removing, relocation or destroying any personal property in the home.
Jeff wanted an order, “permitting Petitioner CHELSEA LAZKANI ("Petitioner") to retrieve any personal belongings from the Manhattan Beach Property upon 48 hours written notice to Respondent. Petitioner shall be given no more than two (2) hours to walk through the property and shall not be permitted to remove any non-personal belongings from the property. If there is a dispute between the parties as to whether any personal property is / is not Petitioner's personal belonging, the item shall not be removed from the property.
In his motion, Jeff said he had paid all the bills.
Jeff wants her out of their home ASAP.
“During the marriage, the parties acquired the Manhattan Beach Property for approximately $2,900,000, taking out a $500,000 mortgage against the property. The mortgage is held solely in the name of Respondent. Respondent has a $2,100,000 million separate property reimbursement claim on the Manhattan Beach Property and estimates the fair market value of the property is approximately $4,200,000. Respondent, without contribution from Petitioner, pays the mortgage, property taxes, and other monthly bills on the Manhattan Beach Property.”
Jeff said after Chelsea filed for divorce, she started exhibiting suspicious behavior, “several of Respondent's personal belongings have gone missing and/or were moved from the Manhattan Beach Property, by Petitioner, and Petitioner previously struck Respondent in the face in an aggressive manner, breaking his glasses and causing a small cut on the side of his face. It is not in the best interest of the children for both parties to continue to reside in the Manhattan Beach Property which is, essentially, the primarily owned by Respondent.”
Chelsea asked for support and joint custody of their kids.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
He claimed, “Specifically, Respondent's scarf left to him by his late grandmother is missing, Petitioner's father's hat is missing, the second key to Respondent's car is missing, and Petitioner admitted to moving Respondent's Rolex after he inquired about its location when he was unable to find it. Petitioner has also been sneaking around the property and attempted to enter Respondent's room when she thought he was not home.”
Jeff said, “She has been physically aggressive with Respondent in the past and, after filing for dissolution of marriage, installed a lock on the primary bedroom to Respondent's exclusion, remotely monitors his access to the property, and records him at the property.”
He told the court Chelsea had a friend nearby she could live with or she could snag a short-term rental.
The judge denied Jeff’s emergency request but allowed him to bring the motion later
