Josh Elliott files for divorce from ABC journalist Liz Cho after 11 years

Lead

Josh Elliott, 54, filed for divorce from ABC journalist Liz Cho, 55, in June 2025, ending an 11-year marriage that began in 2015. Court papers obtained by media outlets say the marriage has “broken down irretrievably,” and the case has since progressed into contested discovery and courtroom skirmishes. Cho responded in November 2025 with a sweeping set of document requests and later sought contempt sanctions after a January 6, 2026 incident involving removal of household items. Both sides have lodged sharp accusations in filings while attorneys for each have been contacted about the dispute.

Key Takeaways

• Filing date: Josh Elliott filed for divorce in June 2025, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
• Marriage length: Elliott and Liz Cho married in 2015 after roughly two years of dating; they have been married for about 11 years as of 2026.
• Discovery dispute: Cho’s November 2025 response demanded communications back to July 11, 2015, and financial and travel documents; Elliott objected to the scope as overbroad.
• Contempt motion: In January 2026 Cho sought contempt after Elliott allegedly moved substantial property, including two Portuguese Water dogs and jewelry, on January 6, 2026.
• Employment history: Elliott was terminated from CBS in February 2017 after an internal dispute over a role announcement; there are unconfirmed industry reports linking him to a possible return to CBS Mornings.
• Children and safety claims: Filings reference a minor child and competing accounts about whether Elliott removed items to secure a safe space for himself and the child.
• Legal teams: The Daily Mail reports Elliott is represented by Needle & Cuda; Cho’s counsel is identified as Blank Rome LLP and MeehanLaw LLC.

Background

Josh Elliott worked at CBS prior to his departure in February 2017, a separation that followed an internal dispute after he announced a job change reportedly without approval. Liz Cho joined ABC’s Eyewitness News team in 2003 and has worked across ABC platforms including contributions to Good Morning America and Nightline. The couple began dating around 2013, married in 2015 and subsequently shared a household that included a minor child and two Portuguese Water dogs.

High-profile divorces involving media figures often generate extensive discovery requests, particularly where allegations of extramarital relationships, transfers of assets or custodial concerns arise. In this case, Cho’s response centers on broad requests for communications, bank and travel records and transfers of property tied to any alleged third-party relationships. Elliott’s filings push back against what he calls intrusive and unnecessary demands, framing some of Cho’s assertions as exaggerated or false.

Main Event

The formal sequence began when Elliott filed for dissolution and equitable distribution in June 2025. According to court documents cited by outlets, Elliott’s petition described the marriage as irretrievably broken. In November 2025 Cho filed a detailed response seeking a range of documents including communications with any person with whom Elliott may have had a romantic or sexual relationship dating back to July 11, 2015.

Cho’s discovery requests covered many platforms—text messages, social media messages, voicemails and applications such as Facebook and WeChat—and expanded to financial records and travel invoices for hotels, airlines and ground transportation. Elliott objected to the temporal scope and relevance, characterizing parts of the request as unreasonable and harassing in court papers obtained by reporters.

Tensions escalated in early January 2026 when Cho filed for contempt after Elliott hired a moving truck on January 6, 2026 and removed what she described as a significant volume of furniture and personal items while she and the child were away. Cho also alleged the disappearance of a valuable watch and earrings from her jewelry bag and asserted Elliott was the only other person with access to those items.

Elliott denied the more extreme allegations in motions opposing contempt, saying he removed a limited set of furnishings to provide a safe haven for himself and his minor child amid what he described as escalating and erratic behavior by Cho. He denied ransacking the home, causing damage or rendering the residence uninhabitable, and disputed claims that he took items intended to remain in the marital residence.

Analysis & Implications

Legally, the case highlights routine but wide-ranging discovery tactics in contested divorces involving public figures. Requests that sweep across multiple communication platforms and long time frames are designed to uncover evidence of financial transfers, gifts, or third-party relationships that could affect equitable division of assets or claims for reimbursement. Courts will weigh relevance, proportionality and privacy concerns when resolving disputes over such requests.

For both parties, reputational risk is a factor. Media professionals face amplified scrutiny; public filings and media coverage can shape perception before matters are adjudicated. Cho’s requests explicitly target conduct and transfers tied to alleged relationships with third parties, a line of inquiry that aims to quantify any benefits received by others that might be recoverable in property division claims.

There are also family-law implications: references to a minor child and to needing a secure environment suggest potential custody or parenting-plan contours, although no detailed custody motion is publicly reported in the documents cited. If a judge finds that relocation of property or removal of pets violated temporary orders, contempt findings could affect credibility and interim orders regarding possession or access to the home.

Industry-wise, Elliott’s prior departure from CBS in February 2017 and subsequent rumors about a return to television underscore the parallel tracks public figures navigate—career rehabilitation alongside personal litigation. Media outlets’ reporting on both the divorce and speculative career moves complicates how employers, colleagues and audiences perceive either party while the dispute proceeds.

Comparison & Data

The timeline shows recurring legal steps typical in contested dissolutions: initial filing, responsive discovery demands, and motions to enforce or challenge conduct during the pendency of the case. The discovery requests’ start date—July 11, 2015—overlaps the early months of marriage and explains why the parties disagree over the appropriate time window for investigatory materials.

Reactions & Quotes

Media reporting has leaned on court filings and anonymous sources close to the parties. The filings contain direct statements that have been excerpted by news outlets.

“The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably.”

Court documents (reported by Page Six)

This language is a standard legal formulation in dissolution petitions and establishes the basis for a no-fault divorce claim in many jurisdictions.

“He did not ransack the marital home. He did not damage the property. He did not render the residence uninhabitable.”

Elliott’s court filing (reported by Page Six)

Elliott’s filing frames his actions as limited and protective, asserting the removal of items was to secure a safe space for himself and the minor child rather than to punish or deprive the other spouse.

Unconfirmed

• There is no independently verified evidence in the public filings that Elliott had an extramarital relationship; the media reports relay requests seeking such evidence but do not confirm its existence.
• Industry reports that Elliott is “likely” to return to CBS Mornings remain speculative and are unconfirmed by CBS or Elliott’s representatives.
• Allegations that Elliott possesses missing jewelry are asserted by Cho in filings and have not been proven in court as of publicly available reports.

Bottom Line

The Elliott–Cho dissolution is a contested, document-heavy divorce typical when high-profile parties with complex professional lives separate. The public record so far centers on broad discovery demands, mutual accusations about removal of property and differing accounts of why items were moved. The legal fight will focus on the scope of discovery, the credibility of competing narratives, and any interim orders governing property, pets and parenting.

Readers should expect the case to continue through discovery and likely court hearings before any final settlement or decree. Key developments to watch are judicial rulings on the scope of Cho’s requests, any contempt determinations related to the January 6, 2026 incident, and whether either party files additional motions addressing custody, asset division or reimbursement claims tied to alleged third-party benefits.

Sources

• Daily Mail (news outlet) — primary article provided to author.
• Page Six (news outlet) — reporting cited for court document excerpts and timeline details.
• Awful Announcing (sports/media blog) — industry reporting referenced for career-rumor context.