Kandi Burruss has publicly pushed back after ex-husband Todd Tucker discussed their former marriage in a trailer for his upcoming film, Til Divorce Do Us Part. Burruss’s response centers on a clear boundary: she believes intimate details from their marriage were private and should have remained that way.
The trailer includes Tucker’s claim that the former couple had threesomes through much of their relationship. Burruss did not engage with the substance of that claim. Instead, she condemned the decision to raise the subject publicly, describing the move as an attempt to draw attention at her expense and as further hurt after their divorce.
“A man who has already hurt me to my core is furthering the damage by choosing to sensationalize our sex life to stretch his five minutes of fame,” Burruss said in a statement.
Her position is not an argument over whether a couple can make private consensual choices. It is an argument about consent in a different sense: consent to make personal history into public promotional material. That distinction is at the center of Burruss’s objection.
A public dispute over a private boundary
Burruss was direct about the line she believes Tucker crossed. “What consensually happens between a husband and wife in the privacy of their marriage is exactly that—private,” she said.
The wording matters. By emphasizing that the activity she referenced was consensual, Burruss framed the issue as privacy rather than shame or judgment about adult relationships. Her criticism is aimed at turning something she considered confidential into a talking point connected to a film rollout.
That creates a difficult divide in any public breakup: one person may see their experiences as material for a creative project or personal account, while the other considers the same experiences off-limits. A trailer is also designed to be attention-grabbing by nature, which can make a dispute over personal disclosures especially combustible. In this case, Burruss said Tucker’s presentation sensationalized their sex life, while Tucker’s claim appears in promotion for Til Divorce Do Us Part.
Public figures often face an additional complication. A relationship visible to fans can prompt assumptions that every part of it is open for discussion. Burruss’s statement rejects that premise. Being known publicly, or having had a high-profile marriage, does not erase the distinction between what a person chose to share and what they believe should remain between former partners.
The divorce timeline
Burruss and Tucker announced their split in November 2025 after 11 years together. Their divorce was finalized in March 2026. Under their agreement, Burruss paid Tucker a $426,000 settlement, and they share joint physical and legal custody of their two children.
Joint physical and legal custody means both parents retain roles in their children’s lives and in major decisions affecting them. Physical custody concerns where children live and the time they spend with each parent; legal custody concerns authority over consequential decisions, such as education and health care. The supplied details do not establish how the parents divide schedules or decision-making in practice, so those specifics should not be assumed.
The divorce process included custody disputes. Allegations also emerged that Tucker had communicated with other women before Burruss filed for divorce. Those are allegations reported in connection with the proceedings, not findings detailed here, and they should be understood with that limitation.
Burruss indicated that Tucker’s current conduct has reinforced her decision to leave the marriage. She closed her response with: “His current behavior has only confirmed that I did the right thing by getting divorced. I Do, I Did, I’m Done!” The last phrase references her stage play and turns the title into a concise summary of her stance: the relationship is over, and she does not want its intimate past repackaged for public consumption.
Why the film trailer changes the stakes
There is a meaningful difference between former spouses disagreeing privately and one of them making a claim in promotional material. A trailer is not simply a casual conversation; it is an advertisement for a creative project. It is made to spark interest, provide a memorable hook and persuade viewers to seek out the finished work.
That promotional context is why Burruss characterizes the disclosure as attention-seeking. Whether audiences view Tucker’s statement as a personal recollection, a provocative marketing choice or both, Burruss has made clear that she did not want this part of their marriage used that way.
The available information identifies Til Divorce Do Us Part as Tucker’s upcoming film, but it does not establish a release date, platform, format, plot details, distribution plan, or the extent to which the former couple’s relationship will be addressed. It also does not provide a response from Tucker to Burruss’s statement. Those gaps are important: the current dispute is about what appeared in the trailer and Burruss’s reaction to it, not a full account of the film or of either person’s private life.
Film promotion can reward the kind of provocative detail that makes an audience stop scrolling. But that incentive can collide with the rights and feelings of people depicted or discussed. The broader entertainment world is also built on personal stories, public personas and questions about who gets to frame a shared experience—an issue that sits near wider conversations around creative work and representation, including initiatives such as the Through Her Lens jury.
Living arrangements add another layer
The situation is further complicated by the report that Tucker has been living in a guest house on Burruss’s property during their separation. The supplied information does not explain the terms of that arrangement, how long it has applied, or whether it continues after the divorce was finalized. Still, its existence underscores how separation can remain practically intertwined even after a relationship has ended.
For co-parents, divorce does not necessarily mean a clean disappearance from each other’s daily orbit. Shared children require continuing communication, and living arrangements can create another point of contact. Burruss has said she has been focused on protecting her peace and being the best mother she can be for their children. In that context, the trailer’s personal disclosure is not being received as distant commentary from a closed chapter; she describes it as an ongoing injury.
What Burruss is, and is not, saying
Burruss’s comments are strongest when read narrowly. She is not offering a detailed public rebuttal to each element of Tucker’s trailer claim. She is stating that her marital sex life was private, that public discussion of it caused pain, and that she believes using it in a film promotion is wrong.
- Confirmed by Burruss’s own statement: she objects to the public treatment of intimate details from the marriage and says Tucker’s behavior validates her choice to divorce.
- Attributed to Tucker’s trailer: the claim that the pair had threesomes during most of their marriage.
- Established in the supplied account: the couple separated after 11 years, finalized their divorce in March 2026, share joint physical and legal custody, and reached a settlement involving $426,000 from Burruss to Tucker.
- Not established here: further details about the film, Tucker’s response to Burruss, or any broader account of the former couple’s private relationship.
That distinction is useful because intimate allegations can quickly become the headline while the actual dispute gets blurred. Burruss’s stated grievance is not merely that people may talk about her. It is that a former partner took a shared, private part of their marriage and placed it in a promotional context without her acceptance.
For now, Burruss has made her response unambiguous: she sees the disclosure as harmful, unnecessary and confirming that divorce was the right decision. The trailer may be meant to sell interest in Tucker’s film, but Burruss’s statement ensures the conversation around it is equally about privacy, co-parenting and the cost of turning a former marriage into public entertainment.
