Ayesha Howard has accused Anthony Edwards of hiding assets to avoid child support obligations, according to a newly filed affidavit that is drawing attention to the ongoing legal dispute between the two.
In documents filed on April 7 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ayesha alleges that the Minnesota Timberwolves guard intentionally concealed financial ties to California during earlier proceedings in 2024, when she first sought child support. The filing, obtained by PEOPLE and first reported by Page Six, outlines claims that Anthony misrepresented his financial standing and business connections under oath.
Ayesha, who shares a five-month-old daughter, Aubri’ Summers, with Anthony, is now seeking a renewal of the original child support order. In her affidavit, she states that Anthony omitted key details about assets she believes are tied to California, including a business entity, trademarks, and a Beverly Hills bank account.
According to the filing, Ayesha claims she uncovered evidence of these assets in August 2025. She included supporting materials such as bank statements as part of her submission, arguing that the information was not previously available because it had been deliberately concealed.
The affidavit further alleges that Anthony previously testified under oath that he had no substantial business presence or personal ties to California, a claim that was central to his argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. Ayesha contends that both she and the court relied on those statements at the time.
However, the newly presented evidence, according to the filing, indicates that Anthony maintained financial, contractual, and business connections within the state for several years. Ayesha argues that these ties meet the legal threshold for jurisdiction in a child support case involving an out-of-state parent.
She maintains that the court’s earlier ruling did not take this information into account because it was not disclosed during the initial proceedings. The latest filing frames the alleged omission as intentional, stating that the assets and financial activity were concealed in an effort to avoid legal responsibility.
The case remains ongoing as the court reviews the new claims and supporting evidence related to Anthony’s financial disclosures and the question of jurisdiction in the matter.
