Judge gives Brenay Kennard 14 days to pay $40,000 bond to Akira Montague
TikToker Brenay Kennard has 14 days from today to pay a $40,000 bond to Akira Montague as she appeals a $1.75 million judgment for her part in breaking up the marriage between Akira and her now-ex-husband Timothy Montague.
Brenay’s case made headlines late last year as Akira used obscure North Carolina laws pertaining to “alienation of affection” (intentionally interfering with a marriage) and “criminal conversation” (having sex with a person’s spouse) to file the civil suit against the TikTok star. A jury awarded Akira $1.5 million for alienation of affection and another $250k for criminal conversation.
Brenay is appealing the verdict. At a March hearing, Brenay’s attorney asked for a stay and pleaded with the judge to only require her client to post a $10,000 bond while waiting for the result of the appeal. Her attorney argued in court that Brenay had lost income due to the bad publicity from the civil case.
“What I keep thinking here is that good publicity is better than bad publicity,” Judge Tessener said at the hearing. “But bad publicity is better than no publicity.”
Akira’s attorney asked for a $40,000 bond. She highlighted Brenay’s appearances on shows like Dr. Phil, as well as receipts of her purchases from restaurants and retailers like Amazon and Sephora. Brenay had also recently purchased a home and a new vehicle.
The judge sided with Akira’s attorney and determined a $40,000 bond was appropriate. The deadline for Brenay to pay the bond was to be determined when the official order was drafted — which was earlier today.
“Upon posting of the bond, all enforcement proceedings shall be suspended for the duration of the stay,” the order reads.
And what happens if Brenay doesn’t doesn’t pay in time? “If the Defendant fails to post the required bond within the time specified, this stay shall automatically dissolve without further order of the Court.”
BRENAY KENNARD LAWSUIT RECAP
Below is a very simple recap of the Brenay Kennard and Akira Montague lawsuit taken from the judge’s order published earlier today:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Durham County, North Carolina, and has been so for more than six months prior to the filing of this action.
2. Defendant is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina, and has been so for more than six months prior to the filing of this action.
3. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for Alienation of Affection, Criminal Conversation and Attorney’s Fees.
4. On November 12, 2025, a Judgment on Jury Verdict was entered, awarding Plaintiff a judgment of one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,750,000.00) plus interest and costs as by law allowed.
5. On November 17, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Rule 59 for a New Trial.
6. On December 30, 2025, an Order denying Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial was entered.
7. On January 15, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal.
8. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Right to Designate Exempt Property.
9. On February 3, 2026, Defendant filed a Rule 62 Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment.
10. On February 23, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Claim Exempt Property.
11. Defendant testified that she received negative publicity as a result of the alienation of affection trial. The Court concludes that “bad publicity” is still publicity.
12. Defendant has not demonstrated any change in income as a result of the trial or related publicity.
13. Defendant continues to engage in discretionary spending, including purchases at retail stores such as TI Max and Ross, as well as frequent expenditures at fast food restaurants.
Defendant continues to employ a cleaning service.
14. In December 2025 following the trial, the Defendant had debits totaling $28,632.91 in her
SECU checking account and debits of $11,899.00 in her SECU savings account.
15. The Court takes notice that, in the Defendant’s Motion to Claim Exempt Property, the Defendant listed one dependent, identified as Timothy Montague, a 28 year old adult, and no additional dependents were disclosed.
16. Defendant testified that she appeared on television programs, including Dr. Phil and
Tamron Hall.
17. Defendant further testified that her lodging expenses in connection with those appearances were paid on her behalf.
18. The Court finds that, as a result of these appearances, the Defendant experienced an increase in income.
19. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant a temporary stay of enforcement, conditioned upon the posting of a secured bond.
Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com
