Tyra Banks is involved in a legal dispute with a Washington D.C. landlord, seeking more than $50,000 in sanctions following a disagreement over a planned ice cream shop. The conflict centers around a lease agreement for a location intended to house Banks’ ice cream company, Smize & Dream.
The dispute began in October 2025 when Christopher Powell, a building owner in D.C., filed a lawsuit against Banks and her business partner and boyfriend, Louis Bélanger-Martin. According to Powell’s lawsuit, he had entered into negotiations with Banks and Bélanger-Martin to open an ice cream shop in his property, which was to serve as the flagship store for the brand and provide opportunities for underserved youth in the area.
The lawsuit claims that Powell and his company signed a 10-year lease agreement with Banks and Bélanger-Martin in April 2024. Powell stated that he invested thousands of dollars to renovate the space but later discovered that Banks had opened a store in Sydney, Australia, without informing him. He alleged that this move came after she and her partner abandoned the D.C. location in June 2024 and stopped paying rent.
Furthermore, Powell asserted that he rejected other potential tenants to secure the lease with Banks, resulting in financial losses when the arrangement did not proceed. The lawsuit accused Banks of using her celebrity status to discourage legal action against her. Powell sought over $2.8 million in damages.
Banks denied any misconduct, maintaining that she ended the lease for legitimate reasons. She characterized the landlord’s claims as a “celebrity shakedown” and challenged the $2.9 million demand.
The landlord eventually dismissed the lawsuit voluntarily in December 2025. However, Banks has now filed to recover sanctions, seeking compensation for the costs involved in defending against the lawsuit and urging the court to dissuade similar actions in the future. She pointed to her well-known relocation to Australia, arguing that Powell should have been aware of her absence from the U.S. and the impracticality of continuing the lease.
At this stage, the case highlights the complexities encountered when business ventures involving celebrity figures intersect with property agreements, particularly across international locations. No further court outcomes have been disclosed as the sanction request proceeds.
