Olivier Martinez has asked a Los Angeles judge to order Halle Berry to pay $240,000 toward his attorney fees in the former couple’s ongoing custody dispute involving their 13-year-old son, Maceo.

The request has not been decided. Martinez’s filing argues that he lacks the resources to keep financing the litigation and that Berry is in a substantially stronger financial position. It arrives after a late-October ruling that dissolved a temporary domestic-violence restraining order against Berry, denied Martinez’s bid to make that order permanent, and left a temporary custody arrangement in place.

For the moment, Martinez retains primary physical custody under that arrangement. Berry, who sought a return to the parents’ prior 50/50 schedule, is limited to designated daytime visits with no overnight stays. The pair continue to share legal custody, which is a different part of a custody order than where a child primarily resides.

What Martinez is asking the court to cover

Martinez’s $240,000 request is split between $176,522.58 in legal bills he says are already outstanding and $63,477.42 in expected future expenses. In plain terms, the filing seeks both reimbursement for work already performed and an advance contribution toward the cost of continuing the case.

His financial argument relies on figures reported in the filing: average monthly acting residuals of $776.34, monthly expenses estimated at $17,555.99, and roughly $43,206 held across various financial accounts. Martinez also contends that he has not landed an acting role in years, while Berry remains active in her career.

Those numbers are claims presented to the court, not a final judicial finding about either party’s finances. Residual income, for example, generally refers to compensation paid after an earlier performance is reused or continues generating payments under applicable agreements. The reported residual figure therefore does not necessarily represent all of Martinez’s possible income or assets. A court considering a fee request can weigh a broader financial picture, as well as the details and necessity of the legal work at issue.

Berry’s formal response to this specific $240,000 request was not clear at the time of the filing. Until a judge rules, the demand remains just that: a request, rather than an order requiring payment.

The temporary custody decision remains central

The dispute intensified after Martinez accused Berry of physically abusing Maceo during a Sept. 26 disagreement involving a virtual-reality game. Martinez alleged that Berry grabbed their son by the neck and choked him. Berry has firmly denied the allegation, describing the event as playful wrestling that escalated and saying Martinez mischaracterized what occurred.

Related coverage includes Olivier Martinez Seeks $240K in Fees in Halle Berry Custody Case.

No final finding resolving those competing accounts is established by the temporary custody arrangement described in the court proceedings. The court dissolved the temporary restraining order and declined to make it permanent, but it also maintained a temporary structure in which Martinez has primary physical custody. That combination explains why the ruling can fairly be described as mixed: both parents had parts of their requests denied, while the immediate visitation schedule did not return to the prior equal-time arrangement Berry sought.

Maceo also testified privately in the proceeding, with neither parent in the courtroom. Private testimony from a child is a particularly sensitive element of family-law disputes, and the available account does not disclose what he said. It would be inappropriate to infer his views, or to treat the court’s temporary order as a public explanation of that testimony.

“Primary physical custody” concerns the child’s main residence and the day-to-day schedule. It does not necessarily mean one parent has unilateral authority over major choices. “Legal custody,” by contrast, concerns decision-making authority on significant issues affecting a child. The parents’ continued shared legal custody means the case’s temporary residential and visitation limits do not, on their own, end joint responsibility for those larger decisions.

Likewise, a temporary order is not the same as a final custody determination. It is an interim framework that governs matters while the case remains active and the court awaits further proceedings. The arrangement is expected to be reconsidered later in the month referenced in the filings.

Therapy requirement adds a structured next step

The order also requires Berry and Maceo to attend 12 joint therapy sessions across six months. A hearing to appoint a therapist was scheduled for Nov. 4.

The reported therapy requirement is a concrete part of the temporary plan, separate from the debate over attorney fees. It also underscores why the case should not be reduced to a financial headline. The requested fees may become another issue for the court to resolve, but the ongoing structure of Maceo’s care, daytime visitation, overnight restrictions, shared legal custody, and joint therapy are the practical matters affecting the family in the near term.

The virtual-reality-game detail has drawn attention because it places a familiar piece of modern entertainment at the start of a serious family-law conflict. But the game itself is not the subject of the court fight, and the available information provides no basis to identify a title, platform, hardware, or any gameplay-related cause. The allegations center on what each parent says happened during a disagreement, not on the technology involved.

Why the fee dispute matters now

Legal-fee requests can shape how long and how evenly parties are able to pursue contested family-law matters. Martinez’s argument is straightforward: he says his reported resources and income do not allow him to continue paying at the pace the case requires, while Berry has greater financial capacity. The court has yet to determine whether the requested amount, the claimed need, and the asserted disparity justify an order requiring Berry to contribute.

There are two distinct timelines underway. One concerns the temporary custody terms and the planned therapy process. The other concerns litigation costs: past bills, projected future spending, and Martinez’s request to shift some of that burden to Berry. The latter will not automatically change the custody schedule, just as the temporary custody ruling did not itself answer whether Berry should pay Martinez’s lawyers.

For readers tracking celebrity legal disputes, that distinction is essential. Headlines around a six-figure fee request can imply that money has changed hands or that a court has endorsed one side’s accounting. Neither has happened here based on the information available. Martinez has made a $240,000 request; a judge has not ruled on it.

The case also sits alongside a broader run of public disputes over representation and litigation costs, including separate fights involving former lawyers’ fees and current counsel. The details, legal claims, and people involved differ, but the common practical issue is clear: prolonged court proceedings can make the financing of legal representation a dispute of its own.

Next steps in Berry and Martinez’s matter include the therapist-appointment process and a later review of the temporary custody arrangement. Separately, the Los Angeles judge must decide whether to grant, deny, or otherwise modify Martinez’s fee request. Until then, the public record described here reflects active allegations, denials, temporary conditions, and an unresolved request for costs—not a final resolution of the family’s larger conflict.