ATLANTA, Georgia — R&B superstar Usher is asking a judge to intervene in a legal battle over $700,000 he says remains unpaid from a $1.7 million loan connected to a restaurant project that never materialized in Atlanta.
In a new court filing reported on November 13, 2026, the singer is seeking sanctions against Atlanta attorney Alcide Honoré, accusing him of providing evasive responses about the location and handling of the money. Usher reportedly says Honoré has denied receiving funds from him, despite wire-transfer documentation that the singer maintains proves the transaction took place. The latest development was first reported by TMZ, citing court documents.
How The $700,000 Dispute Began
The dispute stems from plans to establish Homage ATL, a proposed upscale restaurant and lounge in Atlanta’s Buckhead neighborhood. According to the original lawsuit, Usher was approached in late 2024 by a group that wanted to purchase commercial property for the venture. The singer says he declined to become an owner or equity investor but agreed to provide a $1.7 million loan to help secure the property.
The money was reportedly transferred on January 8, 2025, into a trust account controlled by Honoré, who represented some members of the group. The planned property purchase did not go ahead, and Usher subsequently sought repayment. He received $1 million in August 2025, leaving a balance of $700,000 that he says has not been returned. The Associated Press account of the original lawsuit outlined the loan, the failed property deal and the unpaid balance.
Usher Challenges Attorney’s Account Of The Funds
At the center of the latest filing is a disagreement over whether Honoré received the money and what happened to it afterward. Usher’s position, as described in the latest report, is that bank-transfer records support his account of the transaction. He is asking the court to address what his legal team characterizes as evasive responses during the litigation and to consider sanctions.
The singer has previously alleged that the remaining money was not kept available for the intended property purchase. In the original dispute, Usher claimed that Honoré indicated some of the funds had been used for other purposes and that recovering the balance was not straightforward. Those statements are allegations in an active civil case; they are not findings that the attorney misappropriated the money.
Honoré has denied wrongdoing. When the lawsuit first became public, his attorney told the Associated Press that he had no substantive comment because the matter was in litigation, but expressed confidence that Honoré would be cleared of civil liability. The defendants’ positions and the evidence presented in court will be central as the case proceeds.
Music Industry Figures Also Named In The Case
The lawsuit also names music producer and longtime Usher collaborator Bryan-Michael Cox, songwriter and producer Keith Thomas, businessman Charles Hughes and affiliated companies. Usher’s complaint includes claims relating to the loan arrangement and the alleged failure to return the money after the property transaction collapsed.
Cox has previously described himself as a passive minority shareholder in a company connected to the proposed venture and said he was not involved in the financial transaction. He also emphasized that his longstanding friendship with Usher remained intact. The CBS News report on the original complaint detailed the parties named and summarized Cox’s public response.
What The Judge Is Being Asked To Decide
The latest request is focused on the conduct and responses in the ongoing legal process. A request for sanctions is not itself a ruling that a party has broken the law, and it does not mean Usher has already recovered the outstanding $700,000. The judge must consider the relevant filings and arguments before deciding whether any court-ordered penalty or other relief is warranted.
The broader lawsuit seeks to establish responsibility for the unpaid loan balance and determine what happened to the funds after the proposed Buckhead purchase failed. For Usher, the immediate issue is obtaining a clear accounting and recovering the money he says was lent for a specific real-estate transaction. For the defendants, the case presents an opportunity to contest the allegations and explain their respective roles.
As the case continues, the key questions remain whether the $1.7 million transfer can be fully traced, who had responsibility for safeguarding and returning the funds, and whether the court finds the latest responses adequate. No final finding of liability has been made in the dispute.