Shannen Doherty divorce settlement challenged as ex-husband files court motion after her death
Shannen Doherty’s divorce settlement has been formally challenged after her ex-husband filed new legal papers on January 14, 2026 arguing the court lacks authority to enforce the agreement signed shortly before her death.
Court records show that Kurt Iswarienko filed documents in Los Angeles Superior Court on January 14, seeking to block enforcement of the divorce settlement he and the late actress Shannen Doherty signed in July 2024.
The filing represents a procedural challenge rather than a reopening of the divorce itself and centers on whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce the agreement following Doherty’s death.
What legally changed
In his court filing, Iswarienko argues that the divorce settlement was brought in the wrong court and that, as a result, the court does not have legal authority to enforce its terms. He further contends that the divorce proceedings should have ended automatically upon Doherty’s death and that the settlement should not have been filed or enforced afterward.
Doherty signed the settlement on July 12, 2024, with Iswarienko signing the following day. She died in July 2024 after a long battle with cancer, just after the agreement was finalized.
Why jurisdiction matters
Jurisdiction determines whether a court has the legal power to hear a dispute or enforce an agreement. If a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot compel compliance with settlement terms, even if both parties previously signed the agreement.
Iswarienko’s filing does not dispute that a settlement exists. Instead, it challenges whether the court overseeing the case has the authority to act on it at all.
Dispute over enforcement and alleged nonpayment
The new filing follows an earlier court submission from Doherty’s estate, which claimed Iswarienko failed to comply with several financial and property-related obligations set out in the settlement.
Those obligations include the sale of a Texas property valued at approximately $1.5 million, with net proceeds to be divided equally between Iswarienko and Doherty’s estate. The estate has alleged that the home has not been listed for sale. The filing also states that Iswarienko was required to buy out Doherty’s interest in a Mooney M-20 aircraft for $100,000, but that a portion of those funds was withheld after the plane’s sale.
The estate further alleges that certain items of personal property belonging to Doherty have not been returned, contrary to the settlement terms.
Challenge to the estate’s authority
Iswarienko’s January filing also questions whether the trustee of the Shannen Doherty Family Trust had the legal authority to bring enforcement motions on behalf of the estate. That issue is separate from the financial disputes and focuses on who is legally permitted to act for Doherty’s estate in court.
Legal context: what happens now
This dispute is not about fault or the validity of the marriage and does not involve a new divorce action. The court is being asked to decide a narrow procedural question: whether it has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and whether the estate has standing to seek enforcement.
If the court finds that jurisdiction exists and the proper party brought the motion, it may proceed to address whether the settlement terms were breached. If the court agrees with Iswarienko’s jurisdictional argument, enforcement efforts could be halted or redirected to another legal forum.
Real-world impact
The ruling will determine whether Doherty’s estate can compel payment and property transfers under the settlement or whether those disputes must be resolved through a different legal process. The outcome will affect how and where the remaining financial and property issues from the divorce are resolved, but it does not reopen the divorce itself.
