Denise Richards and Aaron Phypers have been ordered to vacate their former shared residence in Calabasas, California, after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted an eviction request filed by the property’s landlord. Court documents obtained by multiple outlets indicate the ruling stemmed from $84,000 in unpaid rent, with both parties remaining liable under the lease agreement despite their separation and ongoing divorce proceedings. The decision marks another development in a prolonged legal and financial dispute between the former couple, who married in 2018 and separated in 2022.
The eviction order, issued in late December 2025, follows months of unsuccessful attempts by the landlord to collect overdue payments. According to the filing, Richards and Phypers signed a lease for the home in June 2020 and paid a $24,000 security deposit at that time. While Richards stated in court documents that she vacated the property around two years prior to the ruling, she maintained that Phypers and his family continued residing there under an informal arrangement she believed was temporary. She alleged that when this arrangement became permanent, she notified Phypers he would assume responsibility for rent beginning in January 2025 — a claim he did not fulfill, according to the landlord’s assertions.
Given that both names remained on the lease, the landlord pursued eviction against both parties. The court’s ruling formalized the removal order, requiring the former couple to vacate the premises. The judgment also allows the landlord to pursue recovery of the outstanding rent, legal fees, and potential damages, though specific amounts beyond the $84,000 cited in the initial claim were not detailed in the publicly available portions of the court filings reviewed.
This housing dispute coincides with a highly contentious phase in Richards and Phypers’ divorce, which has included allegations of domestic abuse, restraining orders, and competing financial claims. In November 2025, Richards was granted a permanent restraining order against Phypers following accusations of spousal abuse during their marriage — claims he has publicly denied. Shortly afterward, Phypers filed emergency court documents requesting an expedited hearing in his spousal support case, asserting he faced imminent homelessness and citing additional housing-related debts, including $125,000 in alleged past-due rent and $10,090 in unpaid homeowners’ association (HOA) fees.
In those filings, Phypers described a dire financial state, claiming he lacked access to basic necessities such as a vehicle or cell phone unless court intervention allowed him to access funds allegedly controlled by Richards. He further detailed outstanding utility obligations, including $3,543 for water, $13,000 for gas reconnection, $12,000 for electricity, $1,400 for waste management, and $1,200 for specialized trash removal. These assertions have not been independently verified by third-party financial or utility providers, and Richards has not publicly responded to the specific dollar amounts cited in Phypers’ declarations.
The situation has extended beyond the immediate family, with Phypers’ mother, Patricia, launching a GoFundMe campaign in early 2026 seeking $110,000 to support her son. In the campaign’s description, she alleged that Phypers had been cut off financially, left without housing or income, and separated from Richards’ adopted daughter, Eloise, whom she described as central to their family’s emotional well-being. She also stated she had used her pension to support Richards’ household during the marriage and claimed essential services were being disconnected due to nonpayment. These claims remain part of the ongoing legal narrative and have not been substantiated through official records.
Legal Context and Lease Obligations in Joint Tenancy
Under California civil law, when multiple individuals are named as tenants on a lease agreement, each party is typically jointly and severally liable for the full obligations under the contract. This means that even if one tenant vacates the property or believes they are no longer responsible, the landlord may pursue the full amount owed from any or all remaining signatories. In this case, despite Richards’ assertion that she had moved out years earlier, her continued presence on the lease meant she remained legally exposed to claims for unpaid rent until formally released by the landlord or through a lease amendment — neither of which appears to have occurred prior to the eviction filing.
The landlord’s decision to pursue eviction against both parties, rather than seeking relief from only one, aligns with standard practice in joint tenancy disputes where payment responsibility is unclear or contested. Court records indicate the landlord attempted to contact Phypers directly for six months regarding the delinquency before initiating legal action. When those efforts failed, and given that neither party had successfully been removed from the lease, the landlord proceeded with naming both Richards and Phypers in the unlawful detainer lawsuit.
Legal experts note that in such scenarios, tenants who believe they are no longer occupying or responsible for a property should take proactive steps to remove themselves from the lease through mutual agreement with the landlord or via legal channels. Failure to do so can result in continued liability, credit impacts, and vulnerability to enforcement actions — even after physical departure. No public record indicates that either Richards or Phypers filed a formal request to be removed from the lease prior to the eviction judgment.
Broader Implications in Celebrity Financial Disputes
The case of Richards and Phypers reflects a broader pattern observed in high-profile separations, where intertwined finances, shared assets, and ongoing lifestyle expectations can complicate post-separation transitions. Unlike typical rental disputes, celebrity cases often involve layered narratives involving public perception, media scrutiny, and claims of financial control or isolation — factors that can intensify legal proceedings beyond the core contractual issues.
While the eviction itself stems from a straightforward breach of lease terms — failure to pay agreed-upon rent — the surrounding context includes allegations of emotional distress, claims of restricted access to funds, and disputes over parental access to a minor child. These elements, while legally distinct from the eviction matter, have been repeatedly referenced in court filings by both parties and contribute to the case’s prominence in entertainment news cycles.
To date, neither Richards nor Phypers has issued a public statement specifically addressing the eviction ruling. Richards, known for her role on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and appearances in films such as Starship Troopers and Wild Things, has continued to appear in media interviews focusing on her career and personal growth since the separation. Phypers, a former mixed martial arts fighter who has appeared on reality television, has not recently participated in major press engagements but has maintained activity on social platforms discussing his legal and personal challenges.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has not scheduled a subsequent hearing specifically tied to this eviction matter, as the ruling appears to be a final order granting possession to the landlord. However, related family law proceedings — including ongoing negotiations over spousal support, property division, and custody arrangements involving Eloise — remain active. Parties involved in such cases typically receive formal notice of any future court dates through their legal representatives.
For individuals navigating similar situations, legal aid organizations in Los Angeles County recommend consulting with housing counselors or family law attorneys early in the process to clarify lease obligations, explore mediation options, and understand rights under local tenancy laws. Official resources, including the California Department of Consumer Affairs’ tenant guides and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s referral services, provide accessible starting points for those seeking guidance.
As this chapter in the Richards-Phypers legal saga concludes with a court-ordered vacating of the property, attention now turns to how the outcome influences related financial and familial determinations. The case underscores the importance of clear documentation, timely communication with landlords, and proactive legal steps when relationships dissolve — particularly when shared financial commitments remain in place.
Readers are encouraged to share thoughts on the intersection of celebrity, personal finance, and legal responsibility in the comments below. If you found this overview informative, consider sharing it with others who may benefit from understanding how lease obligations persist beyond the finish of a personal relationship.