Crime House Daily — First Watch: TikTok Affair Lawsuit & a DoorDash Delivery Arrest

Host: Katie Ring
Date: December 9, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode of Crime House Daily, host Katie Ring dives into two headline-grabbing legal cases that began on TikTok. The first centers around a high-profile “alienation of affection” lawsuit after a viral affair destroyed a marriage, with social media evidence playing a pivotal role. The second examines a DoorDash delivery gone wrong that sparked a viral accusation and led to criminal charges against the delivery driver. Both stories highlight the sometimes dangerous intersection of social media, public accusation, and the court system.

Case 1: TikTok Affair Lawsuit — Akira Montague vs. Brene Kennard

Background and Key Events

• Affair Exposed via TikTok (03:02):

  • Akira Montague, of Durham, North Carolina, discovers her husband Tim was having an affair with social media influencer (and family member by marriage) Brene Kennard.
  • Brene’s millions of followers witnessed the affair unfold on TikTok, with increasingly intimate videos and confessions.

• Marital Breakdown (04:40 – 10:53):

  • Akira and Tim were married in 2018 with two children; Tim was managing Brene’s rising influencer career, leading to the couples spending significant time together and collaborating on content.
  • Brene and Tim’s relationship turned romantic, and Brene began living with Akira and Tim under the guise of needing space from her own husband, Devin.
  • Akira grew suspicious as Brene flaunted concerning behavior and private TikTok videos between Tim and Brene escalated.

• The Discovery and Fallout (10:53):

  • Akira found irrefutable evidence: DMs proving the affair, worsened by a TikTok video in which Brene detailed their sexual relationship.
  • Quote (Akira, reflecting on heartbreak): “I made sure that I put him first, and I shouldn’t have.” (01:34)
  • Akira and Tim separated in March 2024; Brene and Tim immediately moved in together.

• Lawsuit Filed

  • Using North Carolina’s rare “alienation of affection” and “criminal conversation” laws, Akira sued Brene in May 2024 for $3.5 million.
  • Key point: “Apparently in some states you can sue someone for having an affair with your husband or wife.” (03:02, Katie)
  • Brene’s TikTok posts became crucial evidence of the affair, with over 700 pages provided in court.

• Escalation to Criminal Charges (10:53 & 15:00):

  • Brene retaliated by posting hostile, even threatening, videos towards Akira — leading to an arrest for cyberstalking in September 2025.

The Courtroom Battle

• Trial Begins (17:04):

  • Brene claimed Akira gave her and Tim permission to be together, arguing the marriage was already over.
  • Tim testified he “never loved Akira…and they were more like roommates.”
  • Akira’s lawyers countered with vacation photos and romantic messages from as late as January 2024.

• Devin’s Bombshell Testimony (17:13):

  • Devin Mayo, Brene’s ex-husband and Tim’s cousin, took the stand:

    “Brene and Tim started their affair long before either couple separated… I overheard them talking about being together. I also overheard them having sex in my home.” (17:13–17:30, paraphrased)

• Verdict (17:46):

  • On November 10, 2025, a jury found Brene guilty of alienation of affection and criminal conversation.
  • She was ordered to pay Akira $1.75 million.

Notable Quotes

• “Influencers are a huge part of our culture these days… Our favorite influencers can basically take control of our lives.” (10:53, Katie)
• “This could have been really hard for Akira to prove if it weren’t for the fact that Brene had posted countless videos on social media showing the escalation of her and Tim’s relationship.” (11:40, Katie)
• “...even though a lot of people think alienation of affection laws are antiquated, Akira used them to her advantage.” (11:43, Katie)

Outcome & Reflection

• Akira plans to use the awarded money to “finish college and buy a house for her and her kids.” (18:17, Katie)
• The host wonders if these sorts of lawsuits will become more common, given how personal drama is now broadcast and documented online.

Case 2: The DoorDash Delivery Arrest — Olivia Henderson

Background and Incident

• Delivery Gone Wrong (18:26):

  • On October 12, 2025, 23-year-old Olivia Henderson, a DoorDash driver in Oswego, NY, claims to have witnessed a customer allegedly exposing himself as she delivered food.
  • She immediately recorded and posted a video zooming in on the man’s exposed genitals to TikTok, which quickly went viral.

• Chain of Events (19:22–21:00):

  • Olivia reported the incident to both police and DoorDash. DoorDash banned the customer, but also banned Olivia for violating privacy and platform guidelines by posting the recording.
  • The video repeatedly violated TikTok’s terms of service for nudity and was removed, but Olivia accused the platform of “silencing her story.”
  • Dispute among internet sleuths: Did Olivia push the door open, or was it already ajar? Timestamps and analysis of the video’s angle divided opinions.

• Police Investigation and Charges (21:00):

  • The Oswego Police reviewed the footage, finding the man to be “incapacitated and unconscious.”
    • Quote (Katie): “If he was in fact unconscious and it was a mistake, then Olivia recorded him without his consent, which is not legal.” (21:41)
  • On November 10, Olivia was arrested and charged with:
    • First degree dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image (felony)
    • Second degree unlawful surveillance (felony)
  • She was released on bond, continues to claim victimization by tech platforms and police, and is now represented by a public defender.

Ongoing Complexity

• “It can be so hard to prove what really happened. And in so many instances, victims aren’t believed or able to get the justice they deserve. So hopefully the truth comes out...” (23:08, Katie)
• The host points out possible nuances:
  • If the door was left open intentionally, it could point to predatory behavior.
  • But if the customer was unconscious, Olivia shared illegal and deeply personal images, making herself criminally liable.

Listener Engagement

• “What did you think of today's cases? Drop your thoughts and theories in the comments.” (23:36, Katie)
• Katie promises continued updates as both cases develop in the court system.

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:47 | Episode main content begins | | 03:02 | Introduction to TikTok affair, explanation of alienation of affection laws | | 10:53 | Social media’s role in the affair, Akira’s confrontation | | 11:43 | Explaining North Carolina’s legal framework for alienation of affection | | 17:13 | Devin’s courtroom testimony, crucial evidence | | 17:46 | Verdict and damages awarded to Akira | | 18:26 | DoorDash case begins | | 19:22 | Olivia’s side and social media escalation | | 21:00 | Police findings, arrest and charges against Olivia | | 23:08 | Host’s analysis and reflection on complexity of proving “he said, she said” cases | | 23:36 | Callout for audience engagement |

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• "I made sure that I put him first, and I shouldn’t have." — Akira (01:34)
• "This could have been really hard for Akira to prove if it weren’t for the fact that Brene had posted countless videos on social media..." — Katie (11:40)
• "Personally, I would not be surprised by a man seeing that a woman was delivering his food and leaving the door wide open on purpose to expose himself. But that's also something that should be reported directly to police and not posted on the Internet because you could get into legal trouble." — Katie (21:25)
• "Hopefully the truth comes out whether Olivia really is the victim here or if it's the customer she allegedly recorded without his consent." — Katie (23:14)

Tone & Final Thoughts

The episode maintains Katie Ring's direct, empathetic, and slightly skeptical tone—balancing sensitivity for those involved with objective reporting and legal context. She repeatedly urges listeners not to jump to conclusions and emphasizes the unfolding nature of both cases. The show highlights the double-edged sword of social media: as evidence in court, a tool for storytelling, and a source of real-world legal peril.

Summary written for maximum clarity and engagement for listeners and non-listeners alike.