r/rhobeverlyhills

She said in a reunion a few years ago, sitting next to Erika, that she’s never had plastic surgery, just injectables

I’m going to do my best to clean up the text messages so they’re easy to read with transcripts below.

Text Exchange: April 1, 2026
Dorit:
Can you give me a call please. Thanks. PK, I don’t care that you have your girlfriend here. Haha she knows you have two children and an ex ex-wife. It’s OK I’m sure she can handle you being an adult and speaking to me even when she’s there. You have to start being able to live an honest life. I thought you were finally ready to?
PK:
Dorit I have zero issue with speaking to you zero issue with you knowing about Tatiana. She’s a grown-up your age she has grown up children. She’s a very successful worldly woman who, of course respects and would like for open honest relations. I’m not currently with her but my issues with you unfortunately, are not about that. They are about something far far more troubling.. I late on Friday was sent the last six months of your bank statements.

PK (Continued):
The expenditure is incredibly troubling and coming from a caring perspective. I am extremely concerned. The numbers present as someone who either has a major shopping problem or you have so much money that I’m unaware of. I have zero intention of trying to discuss this with you on the telephone as this will become litigious. I have provided Justin with all the information and numbers.

PK (Continued):
I'm not even sure if you're aware, but below is a snapshot of your luxury (named) expenses from October through January. For you to tell me, you have no money to take our children away on spring break or to help make Jagger and Phoenix birthdays, while within weeks of these dates you have spent hundreds literally hundreds of thousands on clothes is totally unworkable.

Here is the snapshot of luxury expenses provided by PK from the text exchange on April 1, 2026:
** *** **Nov 3**: Louis Vuitton: $10,920.00
* **Nov 5**: Chanel (Melbourne): $32,641.00
* **Nov 5**: Gucci: $6,184.07
* **Nov 5**: Anton Jewelry (Melbourne): $20,159.27
* **Nov 6**: Louis Vuitton (Australia): $7,938.68
* **Nov 18**: Chanel (Las Vegas): $38,625.25
* **Dec 9**: Shopalpoint: $10,394.00
* **Dec 23**: Hermès (Paris): $21,703.08
* **Dec 29**: Saint Honoré (Paris): $13,481.23
* **Dec 31**: Hermès (Paris): $12,135.48
* **Jan 2**: Saint Honoré (Paris): $8,986.58
* **Jan 3**: Louis Vuitton (Paris): $49,653.34
* **Jan 5**: Hermès: $4,098.10
### **Summary by Brand/Vendor**
* **Louis Vuitton**: $68,771.22
* **Chanel**: $60,266.25
* **Hermès**: $37,936.66

PK (Continued):

I’m sending you a stipulation for me to be able to pay the arrears as you know we’re completely out of time. I’m hearing that you are looking at houses that are far too expensive and the reality is the house your in appears to be cheaper than the ones you’re looking at so there’s things that need to be discussed on a professional level and I’m simply not prepared to enter into those conversations with you if you are able to try and justify what is $1.4 million spent since June...
PK (Continued):

When you ask me to live an honest life, you two need to live one and you have to stop telling me things like you got taken to Mexico when the expense is on your statement you got flown to Paris when you spent $30,000 on airfares. The expenditure is presenting as someone who has significant issues and I’m absolutely willing to help you transition. I am not here to be drained by you whilst you do whatever you like with no regards to the consequences... if that’s your plan we will be totally unable to avoid court.

Dorit:
PK, I’m not interested in reading a long drawn out text message. I’m not interested in going backwards. We either can have conversations like we agreed or we’re back to where we were and you have no interest in having an amicable relationship like you said you did. I’m not looking to argue. I don’t care about Tatiana or anything else you’re doing in your life. That’s your life to live PK and I want you to be happy. We have two children together. You have been absent from their lives for two years. I thought you wanted things to be different. I told you I was happy and would welcome a much more peaceful relationship for the sake of our kids and us.

PK:
I’m with George now he is leaving this evening. I’m not willing or able to talk now. I want you to speak to Justin. We have to make a deal. There can be no more temp undocumented temp arrangements and your seemingly totally ignoring anything I’ve just said about your expenditure is not OK.

Dorit:
Just when I think things might shift, I see the same patterns again, and it’s disappointing. I’m not interested in going back and forth or revisiting the same cycle. What matters is stability for the kids, consistency, and follow-through. That’s it. I’ve done everything I can to keep things steady for them, and I will continue to do so. I’m always open to a better way of co-parenting, but that requires real consistency, not words. When you’re ready to show up in that way, it will make everything easier for everyone. In the meantime, I’ll continue focusing on what the kids need. Where are you getting those reports of my ex expenditure?

PK:
Dorit I have your bank statements. They were legally requested as part of a financial disclosure subpoena.
Dorit:
Because those are personal, they’re not for your consumption and if you are invading my privacy, it’s a big problem for me. So I would focus on doing what I do which is live my life while supporting my children.
PK:
No love it's all legal. Fortunately for you I have no intention of sharing these outside of counsel. However the concept you have that you can do what you like, whilst asking me to make essential payments on your behalf is not quite the case. Let's get this wrapped up now speak to Justin and then we can focus on the kids and having a relationship. Discussing financials does not mean that we should not communicate as friends however you're going to be asking me for money that I'm simply not going to provide without an agreement so assuming that's what you want to speak about because you mentioned it on the weekend that's not available to you sorry. As I speak to Justin about this, I'm sure we can resolve.

Text Exchange: April 2, 2026
Dorit:

Choosing to handle this publicly instead of privately, especially where the children are concerned, is so sad and incredibly disappointing. I gave you the benefit of the doubt far longer than I should have, but at this point, whatever respect remained is gone. Not because of one decision, but because of a consistent pattern of poor ones that have created far more damage than ever needed to exist.

Dorit (Continued):
You’re nearly 60, and still making impulsive, short sighted choices for the sake of attention, without any regard for the impact. It’s hard to understand how someone at this stage can lack that level of awareness. You may not be capable of seeing more than a step ahead, but when this inevitably unravels the way it is sure to, as it always does for you, you’ll be left facing the same reality again, only worse.

Dorit (Continued):
Each time it costs you more, your credibility, your dignity, and most importantly, your relationship with your children. When the truth catches up, there won’t be anyone left to defend it. And the opportunity to have handled this differently won’t still be there. At this point, it’s time to bring this to a close and finalize our divorce. There’s no benefit to continuing to leave this unresolved.

Dorit (Continued):
I understand that doing so will require you to secure the necessary funds. How you choose to do that is up to you, but it needs to happen so we can resolve this and move forward cleanly, without anything continuing to tie us together unnecessarily. My focus has always...

Dorit: ...your children has been the most revealing and disappointing aspect of your character. It’s what allows you to move forward with credibility, and in the way that actually supports the image you want to present.
An agreement that reflects a genuine commitment to your children preserves the stability they’ve had and allows you to be involved in a consistent and meaningful way. It also avoids the kind of situations that I’ve had to manage on my own and creates a more workable and respectful dynamic between us, which ultimately supports a stronger relationship with your children.
It leads to a far better outcome if we’re able to communicate openly, be in the same space comfortably, and support each other where needed, rather than continue down a path that creates distance and increases the likelihood of the children being negatively affected.
Continuing as things have been over the past two years will only increase conflict, increase cost, and lead back to the same result, with greater consequences.
There is a clear path to resolving this, reaching an agreement, and moving on. That is where the focus should be so we can both move forward into a better next chapter.

PK: The suggestion that I do not care about my children’s welfare is as defamatory as you have been for the last two years on television. Your most recent financial decisions put the children’s home and well-being at risk with your relentless pursuit of luxury items. I’m not interested in having a debate over this. If you wish to settle this, I suggest you make a suggestion, but it should be made with the reality of the current circumstances.

Dorit: What are the current circumstances?

PK: A house in foreclosure.

PK: If you want to make a deal, then make the...

Important Questions asked in comments

1. Who leaked the texts?

Court Documents: The primary source for the most recent, brutal exchange (including the "leopard doesn't change its spots" remark and financial digs) is legal filings from their divorce proceedings. Once these documents were submitted to the court, media outlets like TMZ obtained and published them on May 8, 2026.

2. There is more texts?
Not that I know of. But updates happen weekly since it’s a legal battle happening in real time

1. Dorit spent only 9.53% of her income on her
   family:$338,919 out of $3,559,095 earned.

2. PK is not rich. He borrows money to maintain his lifestyle. His net cash tlow Is $40, 858. A typical LA story, borrowing trom friends and lenders to maintain one's lifestyle.

2,834,101 were only for Dorit's benefit. None of this went towards her house payments, even though she and her children only live in the house.

2. PK is not rich. He borrows money to maintain his lifestyle. (See chart). His net cash tlow Is $40,858. A typical LA story, borrowing trom friends and lenders to maintain one's lifestyle.

3. Dorit spent $995,000 on wardrobe but no income verification to show maintenance of lifestyle is certain is required by @BravoTV or h/w contracts. Under oath discovery responses confirm this.

The fake Beverly Hills housewives (ie., like the ones from Encino) who don't live in BH can't afford these shows, and it causes them to make bad choices.

Source: IG @attorneyronaldrichards

Where are her loyal defenders…? I don’t hear them anymore…how strange🧐🧐 Thought Dorit could do no wrong! Almost seems like, I don’t know, Kyle was right and Dorit isn’t an all-knowing sentient being! How crazy.

Original post was made by u/Own-Meat3934

They might call Camille a fucking liar, but she was onto something about the Kemsley’s living beyond their means.

So should Camille replace Natalie? 🫢

Some people still seem confused about why it’s offensive and think she’s standing up for herself and being a bit edgy - it’s a misogynistic slur! The worst words people can think of for both men and women are dehumanising words about women and vaginas, and that’s the worst most vulgar one.
I understand women trying to reclaim the word and trying to make it empowering (Erika) but Dorit is doing the opposite of that! Using it as an insult against your female friends is going backwards and I hate it.

Edit: the irony of people assuming I’m American while criticising me for assuming everyone else is American 💀 (I’ve never set foot in America)

What do you think. She’s essentially calling all that drama a set up.

Was Andy just being kind to his guest? And didn’t want to dive into it?

I mean, doesn’t the crew need a sprinter van as well? There’s a lot of them.

It’s the same post I put on here yesterday. Nothing offensive about it other than that it was criticising Dorit 💁‍♀️ I didn’t even write the actual word! 😆

These transcripts were generated by AI.

These legal documents are public information anyone can access them but the where obtained by TMZ and released by them.

In the middle, there are exact transcripts of what was said on the legal documents. All of the top text just gives a quicker explanation of what it means.

Explained

1. Dorit's Personal Expenditure Ledger

A ledger, labeled "Schedule 5" and dated for the period of July 1, 2025 through February 28, 2026, details what are categorized as "Dorit's Personal Expenses."

• Retail Shopping: The key highlight is a total expenditure of $507,413.08 on 'Retail Shopping (Clothes, bags, jewelry, etc)' in just eight months**.**

• Retailer Detail: An accompanying document lists specific high-end retailers, including: Net-A-Porter, FWRD, Moda Operandi, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Hermes, Saint Honore.

• Total Dorit Personal Expenses: The ledger shows a staggering total expenditure of $615,841.25 from her credit card, and $863,191.57 when combining her credit card, Zelle/Venmo transfers, and checking account for that 8-month period.

2. "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" (PK's Financial Trap)
This section, under "USES OF RESPONDENT'S FUNDS" (labeled "robbling peter to pay Paul!"), is a specific analysis of Paul "PK" Kemsley's financial maneuvering to cover his income gap.

• The Loan Borrowings: For the period, PK’s net income is shown as $2,624,714.

• The Debt Payment: He has a high "Business expenses" line of $679,768, leaving him in a deficit.

• The Financial Trap: To compensate for the deficit between his real income and his heavy business/personal expenses, PK relied on substantial "Loan Borrowings" of $821,937.

• The Summary: This illustrates that he was taking out new loans, likely with high-interest rates, to pay for existing obligations, creating a deeper financial hole rather than using actual income to pay debts. This is what is meant by "robbing Peter" (loans) to "pay Paul" (expenses).

3. Franchise Tax Board: Adlon Road LLC Tax Suspension
This document, from the State of California Franchise Tax Board, is an official notification of tax suspension for an entity related to their property.

• The Entity: It concerns "ADLON ROAD, LLC", an LLC that has historically been used to own their home.

• The Issue: The official status of the LLC is checked as "The entity is NOT in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board."

• The Consequence: Because of this "tax suspension," the document clearly states that "House cannot file a suit." This means the legal entity through which they own the home is legally crippled, likely for non-payment of taxes. This condition can severely limit their ability to do anything with the property, including refinance, sell it, or defend against foreclosure.

4. "Kemsley Dissolution" & Foreclosure Threat
Multiple mentions throughout the collage reference "LASC Case No. 25STFL04139" and the phrase "KEMSLEY Dissolution," confirming that these financial details are part of their ongoing divorce filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court**.**

• This indicates that the massive spending, high-risk loans, and tax issues are all central to the legal battle over their assets.

• The overall message is that the Kemsleys' lavish lifestyle was built on a crumbling foundation of debt and tax evasion, now all exposed by their divorce.

End of explanation

Beginning of exact transcripts of documents

Document 1: Notice of Trustee’s Sale
Trustee Sale No.: 88653

Loan No.: 399469120

Property Status: "YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 2/10/2022. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE."

Sale Details: On 5/20/2026 at 10:30 AM, CALIFORNIA TD SPECIALISTS, AS TRUSTEE... will sell the property at public auction.

Location of Sale: Civic Center Plaza located at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766.

Entity Involved: ADLON ROAD, LLC (Trustor).

Document 2: Schedule of Deposits and Expenditures (July 1, 2025 – Feb 28, 2026)
Case No: 25STFL04139 (L.A.S.C.)

Total Income: $1,419,282.18

Dorit’s Personal Expenses (Total): ($863,191.57)
Retail Shopping (Clothes, bags, jewelry, etc.): ($529,884.83)

Home furniture and décor: ($25,308.26)

Travel: ($54,259.56)

Total Personal and Family Expenses: ($923,107.62)

Net Cash Flow: $141,174.56

Document 3: Declaration of Joseph S. Sweeney (Uses of Petitioner's Funds)
Paragraph 10: Petitioner spent 74.78% of her total funds available ($3,559,095) on expenses for her own benefit, totaling $2,661,538.

Paragraph 11 (Wardrobe Detail): From Dec 28, 2024, through March 31, 2026, Petitioner spent a total sum of $995,270 on wardrobe-related expenses.
Specific Retailers: Louis Vuitton ($69k), Chanel ($69k), Hermes ($38k), and Saint Honore ($22k) between Oct 2025 and Jan 2026.

Paragraph 12 (Business Expense Ruling): The declaration states that RHOBH contracts do not require or reimburse for wardrobe, makeup, or styling. Therefore, the $995,000 spent is considered personal expense, not business.

Document 4: Uses of Respondent’s (PK's) Funds
Income: $3,304,482

Loan Borrowings: $821,937 (representing 23.85% of available funds).

Total Funds Available: $3,446,650

Expenses:
Family-related: ($1,901,305) — 55.16%

Personal: ($1,682,817) — 48.82%

Total Expenses: ($3,584,122) — 103.99% of available funds.

Net Cash Flow: $40,858

Thanks attorney, Ronald Richards for your professional break down and context of these legal documents.

I actually love Boz and Rachel. But this image has my laughing

My flair was an Erika quote about the bull, but the mods have changed my flair to be Kyle Richards?! I said this about Kyle on a ‘leave Dorit alone’ post, and when I clicked on it later my flair has been edited.

My conspiracy hat is well and truly on 😂😂

The post I was responding to was discussing how Dorit seemed crazed in the reunion.

Interestingly, the "speculation rule" that I'm banned for doesn't apply to discussing Kyle's control over production, Amanda's bankruptcy/scam deals, or Sutton's racism/alcoholism... but if you subtly imply (as Kathy Griffin and Mcsweeney have already confirmed) that perhaps unnamed cast members who get better edits have easy access to Hollywood nose candy from Cohen, then you get the auto ban. Big surprise...