Blac Chyna’s landlord sues her for $48,000 in unpaid rent
The model-turned-reality TV star is in hot water with the man who she had rented an apartment from, who claims she owes him for back rent as well as damage
In the midst of her ongoing lawsuit against the Kardashian family, it appears that Blac Chyna may have another legal battle on her hands, except this time it’s with her landlord.
According to Radar Online, her landlord, Michael Kremerman, has filed a $48,000 lawsuit against the model turned reality TV star. Kremerman claims Chyna not only failed to per her rent, she also breached her lease and reportedly damaged his property.
The mother of two originally signed a one-year lease for a 6-bedroom, 5-bathroom, $4.5 million Studio City home and then opted to extend the agreement to go until March 31, 2019.
The document clearly stated that the property was listed at $16,000 which was to be paid to Kremerman. However the suit claims that, “During the period of Nov 1, 2018-Mar 5 2019, the Defendant [Chyna] failed to make any rent payments.”
The 30-year-old allegedly moved out in November of 2018, even though her lease was until March. They are also claiming her last rent payment was made on October 1, 2018, leaving a 5 month deficit in her payment schedule.
The property owner says his former tenant now owes him $55,546.00, plus a security deposit of $25,000 and a damages fee of $18,000.06. Court documents allege that she removed “fixtures and equipment from the premises which caused extensive damage. The removal was without consent and/or Knowledge to the Plaintiff [Kremerman].”
This all comes on the heels of a judge in Los Angeles ruling that Chyna will no longer receive $20,000 a month in child support from Rob Kardashian, with whom she has a daughter named Dream. Since both parents are active in their child’s life, the courts determined would be more reasonable for each party to pay for Dream’s expenses during his or her respective custodial time.
The file also confirms that both Rob and Chyna agreed to the order because it is “in the minor child’s best interest, and adequately meets the minor’s child’s reasonable needs.”