Taylor Armstrong almost formerly of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (allegedly) took some time out from her busy schedule of book touring to tell Us Weekly she isn’t ready to date.

“I’m growing and I’m really just focused on Kennedy and learning how to be a single woman and a single mom,” she shared. “I’m just so not ready.” Taylor admits it’s because she still isn’t over Russell Armstrong. “I still think about Russell every single day, and I still miss him terribly and I feel like I’m so far from ready. I don’t know if you just wake up and you’re ready, or how that works. But for me, for now, I really got some growing to do, I think, before I’ll be even ready to be a good judge of what’s good for me.”

Well, perhaps the reason Taylor isn’t ready to focus on a new relationship is she has bigger things to worry about – like a looming $1.5M lawsuit filed against her and her now deceased husband by and NuWay Digital Services (NDS). Taylor heads to court this summer and it seems things are heading down a pretty treacherous path.

Today a routine hearing related to the case takes place. MMR alleges that Taylor was a willfully involved party, along with Russell, in pocketing missing investor monies and assisted in failing to disclose certain investors to MMR as part of a settlement agreement between the Armstrongs and MMR. They also state that Taylor misrepresented herself as being a member of the famous Ford Motor Family in order to “lure” investors. We all know this, but it’s worth repeating for scandal’s sake.


The Daily Beast continues to investigate the Armstrongs’ shady and so-called grifting practices and looked into the elements of the lawsuit. Some interesting details popped up! Here’s a break-down as reported by The Daily Beast:

  • Court documents allege that the Armstrongs “successfully and secretly” funneled money that should have been paid to MMR to their own accounts in order to fund a “live a lavish life-style, redecorate their mansion and become business colleagues of [actress] Eva Longoria in an upscale restaurant.”
  • When Russell was forcibly removed from the board at MMR, he and Taylor agreed to pay $250,000, according to the complaint. The company used the sum to settle with investors whose money was essentially stolen by the Armstrongs. “In order to preserve its reputation in the community, MMR has gone to extraordinary measures to exchange the NDS shares or other ‘investments’ with shares in MMR, so that those people who paid money to NDS, loaned money to Russell, Taylor and NDS or provided personal services to Russell and Taylor and NDS in exchange for payment in shares of MMR in fact receive the interest in MMR that they were promised.”
  • In a sworn declaration, Taylor exonerates herself from any involvement in the illicit practices. She denies being an officer, shareholder, or employee of her husband or any of his subsequent companies. It’s important to note when MMR removed Russell, Taylor was forced to sign the settlement agreement as several investors claimed she was a key element in Russell’s alleged scamming.
  • Taylor insists she was forced to sign that agreement under duress. “I was under the threat of physical abuse from my late husband if I did not sign the settlement agreement … and my late husband had caused me such severe physical harm before that I took his threats seriously.” MMR disputes that, claiming Taylor has not provided a  “scintilla of evidence” to substantiate this claim – nor has she proven that MMR had knowledge of that duress or Russell’s purported abuse. Essentially, MMR does not accept that her book proves she was abused or forced to act against her will.
  • Taylor has petitioned the court for a “protective order” that will keep all of her “discovery responses” from the public eye because she does not want her “personal contact information and biographical information to be made public.” She is also asking that information relating to the abusive treatment by her late husband should not be divulged to the public.
  • The key reason many believe Taylor’s attorney was seeking this clause was to keep any testimony possibly provided by Bravo, those involved in the filming of RHOBH or her co-stars (should they be called) private. i.e. Bravo or its subsidiaries likely would not want there to be any public knowledge of how much they knew or had access to in terms of the Armstrongs’ behavior, finances, etc. while they were filming and working with the couple.
  • MMR fought that protective order, claiming Taylor has worked over-time to promote her memoir and any information related to abuse is by now complete public knowledge. “Taylor has taken it upon herself to extensively publicize the abuse by her [late] husband … Taylor has disseminated the very facts she wishes to have protected by protective order. Taylor is clearly using the sensitive nature of these facts as a guise to obtain a protective order as to all discovery … Unlike stage or screen actors, who play a ‘part’ or a ‘role,’ Taylor has chosen to play ‘herself’ on a reality program. She has chosen to release juicy ‘tidbits’ about her life for public consumption and to increase ratings. So, from any legitimate perspective, it is impossible to determine what type of ‘private’ information has or has not been released about Taylor, or for that matter, how this ‘private’ information has embarrassed her. Stated otherwise, Taylor cannot have her case and eat it at the expense of the plaintiff.”
  • Taylor has since dropped the order, after a judge warned that it would be likely denied. A copy of that petition is below.

Moving on Taylor, talks dealing with her co-tarts and Camille Grammer‘s firing/decision to leave the show. No surprise, Taylor understands and supports it. Afterall, Camille was pretty much the only one to call her out on some of her less than honest behaviors!

“Camille has gone through a lot and I would totally respect that she may need some time to just breathe and to just be with her kids and figure out what it is she wants to do now,” Taylor explained. “But at the same time…she had been through a lot of the same things — Well, I won’t say the same — but similar things that I’ve been through and so I’ve looked to her in the past for advice.”


Taylor’s court petition. [Click To Enlarge]

Click here to read our Comment Policy