Kim Zolciak Mandated To Pay Back Credit Card Debt As Financial Woes Deepen

While Kim Zolciak's social media presence paints a picture of a charmed life, things seem to be getting a little too real behind the scenes. 

The "Real Housewives of Atlanta" alum is facing a financial hurdle as she is mandated to repay her growing credit card debt.  

With her financial woes deepening, Kim Zolciak's money troubles are far from over.

Zolciak's financial troubles continue to mount. She is now required to repay nearly $2,500 in credit card debt to Target National Bank.

According to TNB, Zolciak originally opened the credit card in 2007 but defaulted on her payments in 2022, with her last payment of $500 made in September of that year.

Despite alleged demands from TNB to clear her debt, the TV personality failed to respond. Court documents obtained by TMZ revealed that a Georgia judge issued a default judgment in March, ordering Zolciak to pay the amount owed plus over $100 in court fees.

However, Zolciak has reportedly not responded to the filing, which resulted in the default judgment.

The reality TV star's financial troubles extend beyond a mere credit card bill, as her ex-husband, Kroy Biermann, once challenged her over her spending habits.

In April, Biermann accused Zolciak of refusing to hand over her financial documents, suggesting she had something to hide. Per The Blast, Biermann presented a spreadsheet detailing Zolciak's spending from 2016 to 2023.

The document revealed she had spent over $600,000 on luxury brands such as Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Chanel, Versace, and Agent Provocateur.

The former NFL star also highlighted Zolciak's social media posts showcasing her costly beauty procedures, including vaginal rejuvenation and Botox injections.

In the court documents presented by Biermann, he accused Zolciak of spending significant amounts on the lottery and Bitcoin. Biermann claimed these payments totaled $161,912.87 in 2021 and $65,966.95 in 2022.

The star athlete's accusations did not stop there. He alleged that Zolciak readily spent money on her pleasures, but her contributions to their household expenses were notably absent.

Biermann also alleged that the mother-of-six was dodging bills and secretly stashing cash in a separate bank account.

Before Biermann's spreadsheet revelation, his estranged wife had taken legal steps to safeguard her family's privacy.

The Blast revealed that Biermann was pushing for Zolciak's financial documents, a move she vehemently opposed, fearing it would jeopardize their privacy.

She reportedly filed the motion to protect her family's personal information, citing her response to Biermann's motion to compel discovery.

A motion to compel discovery is a legal request that asks the court to enforce information sharing between parties.

However, the 46-year-old emphasized that their divorce had garnered "intense attention from the media." She also claimed that their private details had been disseminated across social media and various news outlets.

In response to these concerns, Zolciak took a decisive step by entering into a consent order, a legal agreement designed to safeguard the privacy of all parties involved in the divorce case.

She filed an Expedited Motion for Protection Order on February 5, 2024, awaiting the court's decision.

While the former lovebirds continue to navigate their contentious divorce proceedings, they are now facing another imminent challenge: the threat of foreclosure on their home.

The Blast observed that the duo's exchanges with the bank had been happening since 2023, with Truist Bank signaling its intentions since the beginning of the year.

However, Truist Bank's attorneys have reportedly filed new documents indicating their readiness to reclaim the duo's residence ownership.

The bank planned to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding on or after May 3, leaving Zolciak and Biermann with less than a week to respond to the notice and potentially salvage their home.

Although this development does not mean eviction for the ex-couple, it does mark the beginning of a legal battle with the bank over their outstanding debts.