According to a motion filed in Durham County Superior Court, Brenay Kennard argues that the $1.75 million judgment against her was the product of an unfair process, improper jury findings, and a near-total lack of legal preparation after her attorney withdrew shortly before trial. 

Kennard was sued by Akira Montague, who alleged that Kennard engaged in an intimate relationship with Montague’s husband, Timothy Montague, during their marriage and ultimately contributed to the destruction of the couple’s relationship.

After a week-long trial beginning November 3, 2025, a Durham jury found Kennard liable for both criminal conversation—a claim involving sexual intercourse with a married person—and alienation of affection, a claim asserting malicious interference in a marriage.

The jury awarded Montague $250,000 for criminal conversation and $1.5 million for alienation of affection.

Kennard, however, contends that the verdict cannot stand. Her motion for a new trial, filed under Rule 59 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, paints a portrait of a trial compromised at every stage.

She asserts that her former defense attorney failed to conduct even the most basic components of pretrial discovery, issuing no subpoenas, collecting no records, taking no depositions, and performing no independent investigation into the allegations against her.

The motion further notes that the attorney attempted to withdraw twice—in January and April of this year—without scheduling those motions for a hearing, creating a prolonged period of uncertainty and inaction as the case approached trial.

When the court finally granted the attorney’s withdrawal in mid-May, just months before trial, Kennard was left to represent herself. 

The filing argues that this lack of preparation fatally undermined Kennard’s ability to defend herself against a represented plaintiff in an emotionally charged case.

Kennard, who is described in the motion as a social media influencer rather than a trained legal professional, contends she did not understand how severely she would be affected by her attorney’s departure and was left without critical tools for trial.

Beyond concerns about counsel, the motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial—particularly regarding alienation of affection.

Kennard argues that the plaintiff failed to establish that her marriage was characterized by genuine love and affection at the time of the alleged affair.

The motion points to acknowledgments inside the plaintiff’s own amended complaint, including references to a previous extramarital affair by the plaintiff’s husband, as evidence that the marriage had already been significantly strained.

Kennard asserts that the plaintiff offered no testimony or documentation demonstrating that the marriage had recovered from earlier infidelity, nor evidence that her relationship with the husband was the controlling cause of the couple’s ultimate separation.

The motion also raises concerns about the way damages were assessed.

North Carolina law permits juries to award both nominal and actual damages in heart-balm cases, but the jury in this case provided only lump-sum numbers for each claim.

According to the motion, this makes it impossible to determine whether the jury awarded legally proper nominal damages, which may be as low as one dollar, or actual damages, which require specific proof of measurable harm.

Kennard contends that the plaintiff presented little or no evidence of financial loss, mental health treatment, loss of marital economic support, or reputational injury, and therefore the substantial monetary awards appear to reflect “passion or prejudice” rather than evidence-based calculation. 

Her filing points to several cases, including federal bankruptcy decisions involving similar heart-balm judgments, which underscore the necessity of clearly distinguishing between types of damages on a verdict form. Because the jury did not do so here, Kennard argues, the verdict is legally defective. 

Taken together, the motion asserts that the combination of an unprepared defense, insufficient evidence, and a flawed damages assessment justify a full retrial. Kennard also requests that, should a new trial be granted, the parties be required to return to mediation.

North Carolina remains one of only a handful of states that continue to recognize criminal conversation and alienation of affection, relics of centuries-old common law. 

The court has not yet ruled on Kennard’s request that was filed on November 17, 2025. The same day, Kennard made a $2.00 payment towards the judgement, court records show.