Tameka “Tiny” Cottle Filed For Divorce Dec. 7 From TI
Though TI would have you believe that he and Tiny are working to patch things up in their shock divorce, court paperwork filed by his former other half tells a different story.
Lawyers for Tameka “Tiny” Harris filed court docs this week asking for a hearing in March that will establish temporary alimony, child support, child custody, visitation and other immediate matters in the split.
The court date will also give TI the opportunity to explain why he thinks the divorce shouldn’t go through or why Tiny shouldn’t get half of their assets.
Love Bossip Exclusives? Get more! Join the Bossip Newsletter
We care about your data. See our privacy policy.
Generally, couples attend a temporary hearing when they can’t see eye to eye on issues like support, property, debts and custody before their divorce is completed, according to Georgia state family law.
Whatever comes out of the hearing will only be valid until a judge issues a final order.
Tiny filed for divorce Dec. 7, citing “irreconcilable differences,” and claiming that there was no hope for reconciliation. She said they’ve been living separately, and BOSSIP learned that the pair has been paying taxes on separate mega-mansions a few towns away from each other for at least a year.
However, her estranged spouse has gone on the defensive, blasting the divorce as “false reports” and reportedly doing all he can to keep them from splitting up.
Tiny asked for TI to make a full accounting of their money, property and investment accounts because she said she is entitled to half of everything. The singer turned reality star also asked for half of the automobiles they amassed during their union as well as money TI has in a retirement account.
She also acknowledged that the couple is in debt – likely the millions they owe to the IRS – and said that because of TI’s high earning ability, he should be responsible for paying it off.
TI has until the end of the week to officially respond to Tiny’s divorce petition. After that, he runs the risk of the judge granting a default judgment against him.
