Valencia Love helped out her friend R. Kelly by paying his bail bond and back child support so that he could get out of prison back in February. Now, the Chicago restaurateur is asking a Cook County judge for a refund on her money, according to The Chicago Tribune.
Love argued to Circuit Judge Lawrence Flood that as a local businesswoman, she couldn’t afford to have the $100,000 that she paid to spring the embattled singer from jail earlier this year sitting in deposit since Kelly was behind bars again anyway.
The judge denied the request, explaining that Love had no legal basis to ask for a refund on her bail money.
Love’s lawyers argued that she was “unaware of any additional ongoing investigations” at the time when she posted the cash. Given the latest range of charges against the R&B singer, Love is concerned that she is “in jeopardy of losing that money.”
Love is also upset that she seems to have lost the $50,000 that she paid in Kelly’s back child support payments, one of the requirements to get him out of prison.
“She’s a small business owner, and now she’s out that money,” her attorney said.
Love claims that she believed Kelly would pay her the money after he was released from prison and able to work while awaiting his trial.
Kelly was in court on Tuesday as prosecutors petitioned to raise the $1 million bond against the singer. The judge denied the request since the singer is currently being held without bail as he faced numerous counts of federal offenses related to sex abuse.
As The Inquisitr previously reported, Kelly has been struggling behind bars. According to his lawyer Steven Greenberg, Kelly is upset about the charges against him and the media coverage resulting from his charges.
“I’ve seen him get very emotional,” he said. “He’s dealing with a lot of stories that have been made up. He’s not a fighter. I’ve seen him cry when he talks about the situation.”
Kelly’s problems were compounded last week after the singer was issued a warrant for failing to show up in Minnesota for a court hearing. In a separate report from The Inquisitr, Greenberg claimed that his client was not served with notice and wasn’t to blame for the missed appearance.
“I was not served with any notice of court proceedings, nor was he. I did not resist his appearance, nor did he,” he said.