Wife Sues TikTok Star Who STOLE Her Husband: Lawsuit

Can you get your hair out of my. milkshake? >> Pick it up. I'm driving. Boy, when does that ever stop? >> talking to, bro? Chill out. >> Tim, when does that ever Tim, please. >> then. Don't talk to. >> No. When has that ever stopped you from. picking up your drink? >> that. Don't A bombshell lawsuit and a. bombshell trial. A woman sued a social. media star for having an affair with her. ex-husband and destroying their. marriage. And while not available in. every state, North Carolina actually. allows people to sue for this. And. [music] wait till you hear what happened.

at trial, where this online influencer, [music] who represented herself, questioned the woman suing her. This was. an intense showdown that all culminated. with a major verdict. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse [music] Weber. Now, as we're talking about laws that. you may not have heard of, here's a fun. fact you may not have heard of. Did you. know that chips were cooked in tallow. until the 1990s? See, that's when. corporations, they switched to the cheap.

processed seed oils. And I hate seed. oils. I am trying to rid my diet of seed. oils. Seed oils that make up what? 20%. of the average Americans calories? And. we know they're linked to inflammation, metabolic issues. But that is why I'm so. happy we have our sponsor, Masa Chips. Okay, this is a game changer. These are. delicious tortilla chips that are made. from just three ingredients: organic. corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef. tallow. There are no seed oils ever. They are crunchier, they are tastier. than other chips, and you actually feel. good after eating them. There's no. bloat, there's no sluggishness. I got to.

tell you, this habanero flavor right here, I have been eating these. I broke the bag. I'm not a good bag. opener, but I ripped these open. I did. it for the other flavors they gave me, lime, churro. These are amazing, okay? They're. amazing. So, if you're ready to give. Masa a try, probably shouldn't have eaten as I'm. doing the ad read. But anyway, go to. masachips.com/sidebar. Use code sidebar for 25% off of your. first order. If you didn't hear me. because I'm eating, that is. masachips.com/sidebar.

Code sidebar for 25% off of your first. order. Or you can find Masa now at your. local Sprouts stores. And go now before. they're gone, cuz they're amazing. I saw. this story, knew immediately we had to. do it here on Sidebar. Because look, we. cover, as you know, all different kinds. of lawsuits, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional. distress, assault, battery. I will tell. you right now, I feel fairly confident. in saying I don't think we have ever. covered a lawsuit like this one before, where you have a very popular TikTok.

star who is being sued by a woman who. claims that she essentially stole her. husband from her. And believe it or not, in the law, there is an actual specific. claim or claims you can sue for. I. remember studying this in law school. I. hadn't thought about it since then. And. it was only now, when I hear about the. story, that I remembered it. A few. states recognize it. It's called. alienation of affection. And you can. also sue for something called criminal. conversation, which is a claim here, too. It's basically adultery. You can.

sue when someone has sexual intercourse. with your spouse. And we're going to. talk about this. This is a real thing. It is a real thing in the state of North. Carolina, where this is happening. So, it's back in May of 2024, Akira Montague. filed a three and a half million dollar. lawsuit against viral TikTok star Brene. Canard. She's got over 274,000 followers. on Instagram, nearly 3 million on. TikTok. Talks about her life, get ready. with me videos, doing product reviews, makeup lessons, and so forth. Hey,

TikTok. So, I have a couple of things that I got. from the TikTok shop that I want to show. you guys. First up, this hydrating tint. If you don't want to wear foundation, this would be great for you. If you've. had this before, heard this brand, let. me know. And sometimes she appears with. her husband, Tim. Hi, guys. What's up, y'all? Hello. We on here? Hey, guys. It's Brene. It's Tim. And now, old Brene and Tim. have found themselves in Akira's legal. crosshairs. Akira sued for something.

called alienation of affection. And. basically, it's saying, it's alleging, you are responsible for my marriage. ending. In North Carolina, which is only. one of a few states that recognize this, you have to prove there was a real. affection, real love between two people. in a marriage. There was clear proof. that a third party intentionally. interfered with that marriage, and that. the love, the marriage, the affection,

it was destroyed. Meaning the love was, quote, alienated. Is that easy to prove? Is it easy to. prove in this kind of case? And you know. why we're talking about this right now? Because the trial just happened. We. actually just got a verdict on how all. of this played out. Plus, Brene. represented herself during this trial. And before we even get into the trial, back in September, got to mention this. Brene was charged with cyberstalking. after Akira filed a formal complaint.

against her, accusing the social media. star of harassing her online, showing up. places. A filing saying, quote, Canard. constantly mentions my name, as well as. posts my name and answers questions. pertaining to my personal life and. pending cases. And there was also an. allegation that Brene violated a. restraining order that Akira took out on. her. Now, Brene was released at the time. on a $2,500 bond. But when we talk about. bad blood, it should also be noted that. just days before Akira filed her lawsuit.

against Brene, there was a warrant that. was issued for Akira's arrest, that she. was reportedly threatening Brene by. allegedly saying, "I will kill you, and. I will beat your bleep, and I know where. you stay." This is according to the. warrant. So, in that criminal case, by. the way, prosecutors allowed for Akira's. prosecution to be deferred in exchange. for 12 months of unsupervised probation, and she had to complete anger management. classes and have no contact with Brene. Bad. Bad, I know. So, let me bring on an.

attorney who specializes in family law. and divorces, Randy Kessler. Randy, thank you so much for taking the time. Have you ever handled an alienation of. affection case, a criminal conversation. case? I mean, is this common? I know. it's only in a few states. Have you ever. handled anything like this? So, in a roundabout way, we certainly. have. So, it's only in five or six. states. I practice primarily in Georgia, where we don't have it. But we do have. jury trials in Georgia. And so, a lot of. times what happens is my clients come in. and say, "She caused my husband to leave.

me. I want to bring her in." So, we. can't sue her in Georgia and in most. states, but you can sue the spouse and. say, "Listen, because you did this." And. you can bring them in as witnesses, and. you can you can make their life. uncomfortable. But the short answer is, no. Very rarely uh no states really have. this except five or six. And North. Carolina being a close state to us, a. lot of our clients say, "Well, what if I. just move to North Carolina?" It's you. can't do that after the fact. But it's. um it's something we think about and. talk about a lot. And we get asked the. question all the time. And and my.

understanding, these are kind of laws. that originated back in the day when it. was, you know, men still considered. women property, uh uh essentially. So, it it's there's a reason you don't see. this across the country. But how. difficult are these claims to prove? So, if you look at alienation of affection, you have to prove that there was a. genuine love, affection, that there was. a deliberate interference by a third. party. I guess criminal conversation, you just have to prove what? That there. was an affair, that there was an actual.

sexual intercourse going on during the. course of the marriage. How difficult is. this to prove? And what do you do to. prove it? How do you prove it? What kind. of evidence is introduced in these kinds. of cases? >> So, there's a whole bunch of evidence, but I'm going to take a break for 1. second. We've evolved from fault. divorce. You were talking about at the. beginning, you know, these laws go way. back to where you had to have a reason. to get a divorce, you had to prove. somebody was cheating. And now, in. almost every state, you can get a. divorce because I want a divorce. So, it. makes it hard to reconcile I want a. divorce with pointing the finger at. somebody else. So, that's just to get to. your first point. But as far as how hard.

is it to prove these cases? It's hard. The you mentioned two, right? There's. the alienation of affections and the. criminal conversation. As I understand. criminal conversation, it's what we call. strict liability case. Like, if you. prove that it happened, there's. liability, even if the person cheating. with the spouse didn't know the spouse. was married. So, that's an interesting. one in and of itself. The other one, the. bigger one, the one they're really. traveling under, the alienation of. affections, is my husband left me. because she made him leave me. And it's. hard because most people say, "Your.

husband left you because he didn't like. you." Or your husband went with somebody. else because the relationship wasn't. there. It's very hard to blame somebody. else as if your spouse was not a willing. participant, right? But that's what they. have to do. They have to prove that the. other person knew there was a marriage, that the marriage still had some. viability, there was still a chance the. marriage could last. Doesn't have to be. a perfect marriage, but some romance, and that it caused the divorce. And that is a key factor in this case. that I want to get into, cuz there's a. difference of opinion when you hear what. came out in trial. So, first of all, how.

did all this come about? Well, Akira. alleges in the complaint that Brene and. Tim started making these social media. videos, this content together, while he. was still married to Akira, like cooking. videos. And that Akira didn't know about. any of this, or didn't sign off on any. of this. Even going so far as to allege. that Brene would post pictures of Tim. and the children he had with Akira. And. she claims they were having an affair, that Brene was flaunting this online, that she herself found out about this.

alleged affair from a video of the two. of them together in January of 2024. But. when you go to the trial, okay? There. are different versions here of the. relationship, the marriage, which. becomes very important from a legal. point of view. And by the way, a little. preview of the trial, we would learn. during the trial that Brene and Tim they. apparently dated in high school, that. Brene's ex-husband testified that he. found out the two were trying to get. back together in December of 2023, even. heard them being intimate in his house.

in January of 2024. And the complaint. also claims that Akira and Bernice at. one point were friends. That Bernice. allegedly used information that she. learned from Akira about him, about. their marriage, that she used that to. seduce Tim. Now, before I get into all. that, okay, Randy. First of all, three. and a half million dollars that she's. suing for in compensatory and punitive. damages. And again, we'll talk about the. trial and everything that happened. there, but three and a half million. dollars in compensatory and punitive.

damages, your thoughts on that number. and how do you prove that? Ooh, there's. a lot there and you have my mind. working. I was listening to everything. you were saying, Jesse, and talking. about, you know, I started to think, you. know, rape is a bad example, but the. defense can be consent. Someone. consented, you know, and did she know. about it? So, there are all these. defenses that are rolling through my. lawyer brain, but the number, you're. asking about the number. I don't know how you get to that number. You know, one thing that lawyers always. think about. is collectibility. You know, does it do. a lot of good to bring a lawsuit if you. can never collect it? And what's. interesting here is this is one of those.

kind of cases where most clients, most. plaintiffs. don't really care as much about the. number as the principle, right? They. want to prove to the world that this. lady caused my divorce. I'm not a bad. wife. I didn't do anything wrong. It's. because this outside person. I think the. three number three three million or 3.5. million, whatever she's seeking, it's got to be more of that, more of a I. want the world to know it's so bad that. it's millions of dollars. So, I I don't. know how else you quantify you know, 3.5. was my relationship worth 3.5 million? My relationship might have been worth a. hundred million or might have been worth.

ten dollars. I just don't know how. >> also pain and suffering, right? What you. went through. >> Yeah, but you know, in a typical pain. and suffering case, right? You know. this, we have, you know, how much is a. lost arm worth? If you break your leg, what's the value of that? What about a. damaged kidney? You can find ways to. prove how much that shortens your life. and the medical bills associated with. it, then you multiply the medical bills. by three to get a pain and suffering. number. I mean, there's just no real. numbers game, no math in this. It's It's. a matter of, you know, how bad does this.

make you feel? And And from a lawyer's. point of view, it's a straight face test. What can I. walk in in front of a jury and say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this. should be compensated to the tune of"? And if I say a hundred million dollars, they're going to laugh. And if I say a. hundred thousand, they're not going to. take me seriously. So, three and a half. million dollars sounds like a. you know. And And when you're talking punitive. damages, right? A way to punish the. defendant for really bad egregious acts, you know, you wonder in a case like. this, if you're accusing somebody. of stealing your husband and cheating, you know, you wonder if a jury would.

side or judge would side. So, I. mentioned that this trial just happened. and it just concluded at the Durham. County Courthouse. And we're going to. talk about how the trial resolved, but. Randy, first of all, Bernice Kennard is representing or was. representing herself. Were you surprised. by that? And And the one that reason the. first thing I thought about, look, if. she communicates on social media in a. way where she got this following, that's. a useful skill in maybe getting a jury. on her side, right? It was her. personality, the way that she spoke,

that got a lot of people to follow her. I wonder if that's useful and maybe not. the worst idea for her to represent. herself, even though you and I both know. it's more advantageous to have a lawyer. represent you. Right. Well, I mean, there's that famous old saying, right? He who represents himself has a fool for. a client. Um, because you just don't. have the objectivity. You don't really. have a chance to read the jury. And she. could always testify and she would. testify, of course, on direct. examination, but it's. it's guts, it's gumption to say that I'm. smart enough to be able to, you know, convince this whole jury, but maybe.

that's what's in her mind and she's got. so many followers and people like her. and adore her that maybe she thinks. that's what what's going to happen. The. one skill set that you most people don't. have and most lawyers don't have and I'm. still trying to figure it out is voir. dire, right? Jury selection, because. you you were talking about what's going. on in the jury's mind. You don't know. what the background of each of these. jurors or what if one of these jurors. sympathizes with one side or the other? What if they were the spouse that was. cheated on or what if they were the. paramour that broke up another marriage? You You really got to figure out who's.

deciding this case. That's a hard skill. to learn, especially for a non-lawyer. No, that's a good point. Um, so, okay, I'm going to get to the verdict, but few. points I want to mention. Now, as I. mentioned, in order to prove alienation. of affection, you have to show that. there was a genuine, real love in the. marriage. So, Akira gets on the stand. and testifies that there was love. between her and Tim. That Tim wrote her. love letters daily. That they had. matching tattoos. That the relationship. continued well past when Tim claimed it.

ended, with the two having sex. regularly. And she expressed sadness on. the stand that her children lost both of. their parents in this whole ordeal. That. her kids are on the waitlist for therapy. because they are, quote, going through a. lot of behavioral changes. Her mother. also testified that Akira and Tim were, quote, inseparable. There were texts. that were apparently presented in court. where Tim was planning a surprise. birthday party for Akira. But then you have Tim's side of it, okay? And completely different. And Tim.

was called by Bernice, by the way, again, she was representing herself. He. had a completely different view that the. two were more like, quote, roommates. than deeply in love, even saying he was. never in love with Akira. That he bought. her a cheap engagement ring. That he. didn't even get down on one knee when he. proposed. That they were essentially in. this weird living situation where they. were forced to marry in order for them. to stay at Tim's parents' place. He. testified he never wrote those love. notes, even testifying, quote, "I can't.

even recall a time when we held hands.". He testified that they fought all the. time, too. That he had a different. timeline of when the relationship ended, saying that they separated in 2021, but. Akira's mom said they were still a. couple. Now, Randy, that's a big aspect. here. I mean, it. It's trying to prove whether or not. there was real love and affection in the. marriage, but you also wonder, both. parties testifying, are they biased in. their testimony? Well, you know, maybe she should be a. lawyer because that is the exact. strategy you have to use. You have to.

prove that the marriage wasn't viable. There was no more It was not a real. marriage. You didn't break up something. because there wasn't anything to break. up in that situation. The marriage was. not a real marriage. The problem she has. is that it's not a criminal trial where. the, you know, you have to get all. twelve jurors. All you have to do is get. a compromise verdict. And sometimes. you're going to have. some of the people saying yes, some of. the people saying no, and the jury might. say, "I think three million. I think zero.". And they compromise down to the middle. Something like that sometimes happens. So. Now, here's another part of the story.

that we haven't mentioned yet, okay? So, Bernice was apparently staying with. Akira and Tim since December of 2023, something that Akira didn't want. And. although Bernice claimed she didn't know. that Akira was uncomfortable about this, Akira's grandmother testified that she. actually confronted Bernice, Bernice, asked her to leave the home. She claims. that Bernice responded saying, "Akira, you better come get your grandma because. I don't have a problem putting my hands. on an old lady." This is And Kennard uh.

yeah, again, that is according to the. grandmother's testimony. And apparently. Tim even corroborated that there were. words exchanged between the two between. the two. This is when he testified. Now, this grandmother also testified that she. and Bernice actually got into a pushing. match. Tim denied that happening. By the. way, when talking evidence, I got to mention this. Apparently there. was footage that was shown to the jury, footage of Bernice twerking on Tim while. in a bathroom while he was married to.

Akira. Bernice testified that she was. just drunk in those clips. There was. another video of Bernice buying a. pregnancy test after saying, "I'm. getting down and dirty in the sheets.". There was another video where Bernice. apparently says, "I make her very. uncomfortable." So, it's seemingly about. Akira. There was reportedly a Snapchat story. that was presented, too, where she. talked about her legal issues and said. that Tim was, quote, "worth it." Randy, in your opinion, how does that affect. the case?

Oh, boy. All right, so, you know, we've. got all the law that we've talked about. and what you have to prove and and the. picking of a jury, but really what jury. trials come down to, in my experience, is likability, right? You want to get. You want to tell a story and you want. the jury to like your side and then to. figure out how can we help your side? So, if this alienates the jury, if this. makes the jury like or dislike one side, they're going to be more likely to bend. the law or view the law. as it helps their viewpoint. They want. to help award damages or they want to. defend the the defendant and not award.

damages. But that's Those. [clears throat] are some unlikable. facts. Those are the kind of things that. make people say, "Really? You couldn't. just be normal? You couldn't wait till. they were divorced? You couldn't keep. your hands off Bernice?" I mean, those. Those are the kind of things that might. hit home. There might have been someone. on the jury that had an experience like. that and it just triggered something. that makes them say, "I don't like that. person. I'm going with this side." And. from a legal point of view, it's trying. to show that she deliberately interfered. with the marriage, right? Now, Bernice's. counterargument was, um, that she was being targeted. That.

she was being targeted in this lawsuit. because of her social media fame. That. she wasn't the reason the marriage fell. apart. Bernice saying to the jury in a. closing argument, quote, "This was a. marriage that had been falling apart for. years." And that goes back to what Randy. said at the beginning, you know, trying. to prove that, "Hey, I'm not the cause. of it. Tim didn't love her. He was going. to break up with her. There was things. that were going on between them. You. know, I'm not the reason here." Now, it. seems that the real fireworks happened. in court when Bernice questioned Akira.

on the stand. And apparently it got. really tense, okay? When she questioned. her, for example, about how Akira. suffered a miscarriage. And Bernice. apparently said in court in response to. that, "That must have been painful for. you, right?" Now, the reporting from the. News and Observer claims that people in. the gallery actually gasped. It would. even a few jurors looking just shocked. that she said that to Akira. And Akira reportedly responded, "Well, I. wouldn't expect you to know since you.

don't have children." So, the judge had. to get involved here. Judge Timothy. Wilson reportedly had to step in, said. to Bernice, "You don't need to express. your sympathy." And told Akira, "And you. don't need to make comments." At another. point when Bernice questioned Akira. about her blaming her for struggling in. school, right? The allegation was, "Look. what you did. You kind of ruined my. life." Akira responded, "I take. accountability for allowing an intruder. into my home." Randy, that is like, you. know, obviously there's bad blood. between them and it's very awkward and.

unusual to have the defendant herself. questioning the plaintiff, particularly. the animosity between the two. What do. you make of that? Made for TV, right? This is I imagine. security was doubled when they said, you. know, "Guess who's going to be. cross-examining who? Guess who's going. to be, you know, uh getting to ask. questions?" I mean, it's the it's the. it's almost, you know, it's the. And again, it's a dramatic over example, but it's the rapist getting to question. the victim, right? It's the person who's. accused of breaking up the marriage. getting to question the victim of this. whole situation. Uh it's just a terrible.

situation. I'm sure they were thinking. things that uh they probably didn't say. Um thank goodness they didn't say them. And I'm sure security was doubled, but. that's um that had to be the highlight. of the of the trial. And um if you're. going to go watch a trial and you get to. see something like that, that's the. moment you want to see. That's the. pinnacle, but for the verdict, right? And we're going to get to the verdict in. a minute. But little side note here, you. mentioned security. Tim, he was arrested during the trial. outside the courtroom. Yeah, he was. charged with carrying a concealed 9 mm. handgun in the courthouse. He was.

actually released after posting a $2,500. bond. It's just a little side note here. in the story. Anyway, okay. Now, let's. talk about the verdict. So, after. reportedly almost 2 hours of. deliberations, the jury came back with a verdict. And. you know who they sided with? Akira. Yep, they found Bernice liable. for breaking up this marriage. And when. it came to damages, according to the. News & Observer, the judge ordered. Bernice to pay 1 and 1/2 million dollars.

for alienation of affection and $250,000. for criminal conversation. Randy, the. suit was for 3 and 1/2 million dollars. in damages. Even so, that's a pretty hefty payday. when you think about um that number. Let's start with the number and then let. me ask you about why you think the jury. uh found Bernice liable. Let's start. with the number. What do you make of the. number? First off, it's incredible, right? Anything over a million dollars, there's. something magical. You know, every. lawyer when we go to law school, if you. can get out of law school and say, "I. got a verdict for 1 million dollars.".

That's a win, right? In almost any. situation except for when it's a, you. know, class action lawsuit. Um what I. think happened. is, and this is just my experience from. juries when I pulled the jury and asked. them what they did, there was usually a. few extremists, somebody that said, "Let's not give anything because you. don't get rewarded for stuff like this. It's not a money thing, it's a family. thing." Well, well, here I think it By. the way, just a I think it was the judge. that, you know, determined the damages. here. Yeah. All right. In that case, then the judge probably had the thing. going on in his mind, which is, you.

know, is it is it absolutely nothing or. is it something in the middle? I think. um. you know, likeability comes into play. when you come up with a number, right? When it's a number that's really a. figment of your imagination, there's no. real concrete basis for the number. It's. got to be some sort of in your mind, okay, I didn't like what she did, but it. wasn't I've seen worse. And I didn't. like what he did, but it it's worse it's. a compromise verdict, but it certainly. it sends a message that there was. something that needed to be compensated. and it's a big number. It sounds like if. I was just deciding who won,

plaintiff won. By a long shot. And what is it? The jury. didn't believe Bernice's side of the. story, she didn't believe Tim they. didn't believe Tim. In other words, it. seems that they're saying, we talk about. it in the law but for but for them. having, you know, this affair, but for. them getting together, this marriage. would have continued between Akira and. Tim. I mean, is that what their. conclusion is? And what do you think? Why do you think the jury found Bernice. liable?

I think that's a natural conclusion. Would the marriage have lasted forever? They don't have to decide that. I mean, they looked at the elements of the law. You know, did was there this. relationship? Did it interfere with the. marriage? In other words, was the. marriage still at all viable? You know, and then what were the damages? They um. they found that this marriage would have. continued. but for this. It might have ended for. another reason or there might have been. another relationship or another. paramour, but this certain paramour. caused the end of the affections. It. alienated the parties from their. affections for each other. They found.

that the law applied and they applied. the facts of the law and found that the. plaintiff won. And also, I will tell you. that uh Robinetta Jones, who was the. attorney for Akira, said uh told this to. local outlet uh WRAL News, quote, "She. has just received justice from losing. her husband and the father of her. children." She's such an unusual case. I. again, I wanted to cover it from a legal. point of view. There are this is a sad. case, you know, you're talking about a. lot of emotions here, a lot of bad. blood, children involved. But uh yeah,

this has been quite the saga, to say the. least. Um Randy Kessler, thank you so. much for taking the time. Really. appreciate it. My pleasure. And that's. all we have for you right now here on. Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much. for joining us. And as always, please. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your. podcasts. You can follow me on X or. Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak. to you next time.