Christina Haack And Her Estranged Husband Disagree On $65,000 Request Claims

Christina Haack (formerly Hall) continues to butt heads with her estranged husband, Josh Hall, over their divorce.

The HGTV star's intentions of ending things with her former beau have been clear, especially with her recent decision to ditch her married name and revert to her maiden name.

However, changing her name seems like an easier feat for Christina Haack than getting Josh Hall to stop pursuing spousal support. Although she slammed him for requesting $65,000, her estranged husband claimed he never asked for the massive sum.

The spousal support drama between Christina and Josh began with a recent court filing from the "Flip or Flop" star. She alleged her ex had asked for an exorbitant price, claiming:

"Josh Hall is requesting $65,000 per month in spousal support from [Christina] on a 2 year, 9 month marriage, which is outrageous when he is self-supporting."

Christina stressed that Josh had "no need for spousal support," arguing that he "just paid over $70,000 to pay off the lease" on a Bentley. However, the latter slammed her allegations in an Instagram Story post on Wednesday, October 16.

Josh claimed Christina's legal documents were "riddled with lies and assumptions," per PEOPLE. He also bashed her attorney, Matthew S. DeArmey, for filing these false allegations.

In his rebuttal, Josh accused Christina's attorney of using dishonorable methods in their legal fight. "Interesting tactic for someone who is a licensed attorney and took an oath of integrity," he noted.

"Pretty sure making provably false statements to a judge is unethical," Josh added. His legal rep echoed similar sentiments about Christina's spousal support claims in a statement, stressing:

"This filing is riddled with provably false statements. For one, Josh never requested $65,000 in support. That's false."

While it remains unclear how much Josh had requested, it was important to note that he asked for spousal support in his initial divorce filing. Although the amount he wanted was not specified in his July petition, Christina refused to honor any demands.

She petitioned the court to deny both parties rights to spousal support. The newest update in their alimony battle comes days after Josh moved to stop the sale of Christina's Leiper's Fork farmhouse in Tennessee.

The Blast reported that Christina and Josh did not see eye to eye about selling her Tennessee property. He filed a temporary emergency order to remove the home from the market, claiming it breached the terms of the duo's agreement.

Christina purchased the property in February 2021, long before meeting Josh. Despite having all rights to the home, her estranged husband argued that "A premature sale may result in prejudice to me as property values continue to rise in Tennessee, which continues to grow in population."

Josh doubled down on the unfair sale, claiming Christina placed it on the market without his consent. He allegedly found out about the sale through social media, but when he contacted his ex, she claimed his objection was "ineffective."

Josh claimed that he and Christina had reached an agreement about her Newport Beach and Tennessee properties. She was given "exclusive use and possession" of the first property while he got the second.

Josh noted the Tennessee home was used as a short-term rental when it was not in use. So he always stayed with family whenever there were guests; however, he only spent 12 days at the property before Christina listed it for sale.

"My relocation to Tennessee was significantly influenced by our aforementioned Stipulation, allowing me to enjoy this property throughout our separation. I will now suffer prejudice because my living expenses will undoubtedly increase," Josh lamented.

Josh painted himself as a victim in his filing, insisting he would suffer losses if Christina sold her Tennessee property. He stressed that there would be "no prejudice" to her if the court stopped the sale, noting:

"She is enjoying our community residence. She is in control of our entire marital estate. She has cut me out of our businesses post-separation, impacting my earnings."

"Christina has continued to maintain the marital status quo while I have endured significant changes, to my detriment. There exists no compelling basis to sell the Parker Branch property during the pendency of this action," Josh argued.

Who will the court support between Christina Haack and Josh Hall?