Lead
Tyra Banks has asked a federal judge to award her more than $50,000 in sanctions after a Washington, D.C., landlord sued her over a planned Smize & Dream ice‑cream shop. The suit, filed in October 2025 by building owner Christopher Powell, accused Banks and her partner of abandoning a signed lease and sought more than $2.8 million in damages. Powell voluntarily dismissed the case in December 2025, and Banks now says she was improperly dragged into litigation despite her residence in Australia. The filing seeks penalties and a court message discouraging what Banks characterizes as a “celebrity shakedown.”
Key Takeaways
- Tyra Banks filed court papers on February 24, 2026, seeking over $50,000 in sanctions tied to defense costs and litigation conduct.
- The original lawsuit was filed in October 2025 by landlord Christopher Powell over a proposed Smize & Dream lease in Washington, D.C.
- Powell’s complaint alleged a 10‑year lease signed in April 2024 and that Banks and partner Louis Bélanger‑Martin abandoned the site in June 2024.
- Powell claimed he spent thousands renovating the space and sought in excess of $2.8 million; Banks’ filing references a $2.9 million demand in the dispute.
- Banks says her publicly reported relocation to Australia made D.C. jurisdiction and the landlord’s actions inappropriate.
- The landlord voluntarily dismissed the suit in December 2025; the sanctions petition argues the case should not have been brought.
Background
The dispute centers on Smize & Dream, the ice‑cream brand associated with Tyra Banks. In April 2024, the parties say a lease was signed for space in a Washington, D.C., building where Powell asserted he planned to host the brand’s flagship store. Banks and her partner Louis Bélanger‑Martin were identified in court papers as the potential tenants.
According to the landlord’s October 2025 complaint, Powell invested in preparing the premises and declined other prospective tenants after entering talks with Banks’ team. The complaint says the D.C. location was pitched as a community‑oriented flagship that would support underserved youth.
Banks and her legal team dispute those characterizations, pointing to her subsequent business activity in Sydney, Australia, and saying the lease was terminated for lawful reasons. The case escalated to a dramatic claim‑and‑counterclaim posture before being dismissed by the landlord in December 2025.
Main Event
In October 2025, Powell — through his company — sued Banks and Bélanger‑Martin in a D.C. court, alleging breach of a 10‑year lease and seeking more than $2.8 million in damages for lost rent and renovation costs. The complaint alleges the tenants abandoned the location in June 2024 and that Powell lost opportunities by turning away other renters.
Banks responded by denying wrongdoing and arguing she had valid grounds to terminate the lease. Her filings emphasize that her relocation to Australia was public and that the landlord should have known she would not maintain a D.C. presence to operate the store.
Powell’s suit accused Banks of using her celebrity to deter litigation and to frustrate his ability to collect damages. The landlord subsequently dismissed the lawsuit voluntarily in December 2025, a procedural move that left unresolved questions about expenses and reputational harm.
On February 24, 2026, Banks’ attorneys asked the court to impose sanctions on Powell for initiating and maintaining the suit, requesting more than $50,000 to cover costs and to signal that such filings are improper when jurisdiction and facts are weak. The filings frame the dismissal as an acknowledgment that the case should not have proceeded to litigation.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the sanctions request turns on whether Powell’s original filing lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact, or was filed for improper purposes such as harassment. Federal and local rules allow judges to impose monetary penalties when a party brings frivolous claims or abuses process; proving that standard, however, can be challenging.
Jurisdictional facts — notably Banks’ claimed residence in Australia and the timing of her public move — are central. If Banks can show she had no meaningful connection to D.C. when the lease issues arose, a court may view the original complaint as weaker. Conversely, if the landlord demonstrates sufficient contacts or commercial activity in D.C., his initial filing may be vindicated.
Beyond the courtroom, the dispute illustrates tensions that arise when celebrity brands expand across borders. Landlords rely on prospective flagship tenants to drive foot traffic and may take financial risks; high‑profile tenants can attract scrutiny and amplified reputational stakes when deals break down.
Practically, a sanctions award of the size Banks seeks (more than $50,000) would partially compensate her for legal fees and could deter similar filings, but it would be modest relative to the seven‑figure damage claims at the center of the original suit. The larger economic question — who bears construction and opportunity costs when a proposed flagship never opens — remains a fact‑specific inquiry.
Comparison & Data
| Date | Event / Claim |
|---|---|
| April 2024 | Alleged 10‑year lease signed for D.C. location |
| June 2024 | Banks and partner purportedly abandoned the site |
| October 2025 | Powell filed suit seeking in excess of $2.8 million |
| December 2025 | Powell voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit |
| February 24, 2026 | Banks filed for more than $50,000 in sanctions |
The table lays out the principal timeline and contested dollar figures. While the landlord’s claimed damages exceed $2.8 million, Banks’ sanctions request is targeted and procedural rather than compensatory for business losses. The amount sought in sanctions is therefore dwarfed by the initial damage estimate and speaks to a legal strategy focused on conduct rather than substantive recovery.
Reactions & Quotes
Tyra Banks’ filing frames the landlord’s actions as improper given her public move to Australia and the lack of a meaningful D.C. connection. Her team emphasizes that the dismissal should have occurred earlier.
“celebrity shakedown”
Tyra Banks (court filing)
The landlord’s complaint characterized the defendants’ behavior as leveraging public profile to avoid contractual obligations and asserted financial harm from lost rental income and renovation outlays.
“weaponized”
Landlord’s October 2025 complaint
Neither side has released extended public statements beyond court papers; both have relied on filings to place concise allegations and legal positions before the judge.
Unconfirmed
- The precise dollar amount Powell says he spent renovating the space is described as “thousands” in filings but is not itemized in the public complaint.
- Whether other tenants were formally offered and declined in favor of a deal with Banks is asserted by the landlord but not independently corroborated in the record made public.
- Courts have not issued a ruling on the merits of whether D.C. was an appropriate forum for Powell’s original suit; the case was voluntarily dismissed in December 2025.
Bottom Line
This dispute is as much about courtroom process as it is about commercial loss. Banks’ sanctions motion seeks to shift the focus from the multi‑million dollar damage allegation to the propriety of the landlord’s decision to sue, arguing that the action imposed unnecessary legal costs on a defendant with arguable ties outside the forum.
The judge’s response will turn on whether the original complaint met governing standards for a reasonable claim and whether the dismissal reflects substantive weakness or a tactical choice by Powell. If the court grants sanctions, it may discourage similar suits where jurisdiction or factual foundations are thin; if not, it could leave open the broader question of who ultimately absorbs the economic loss from the failed flagship plan.