{"id":13786,"date":"2026-05-14T05:11:06","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T05:11:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/mauricio-umansky-denies-asking-lala-kent-out-calls-her-a-liar\/"},"modified":"2026-05-14T05:11:06","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T05:11:06","slug":"mauricio-umansky-denies-asking-lala-kent-out-calls-her-a-liar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/influencerswiki.org\/blog\/mauricio-umansky-denies-asking-lala-kent-out-calls-her-a-liar\/","title":{"rendered":"Mauricio Umansky Denies Asking Lala Kent Out, Calls Her a ‘Liar’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Real estate mogul Mauricio Umansky has vehemently denied claims made by reality TV personality Lala Kent that he asked her out on a date. The \u2018Real Housewives of Beverly Hills\u2019 star\u2019s estranged husband, Umansky, publicly called Kent a \u201cfucking liar\u201d while speaking to TMZ outside the upscale eatery Craig\u2019s in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

The Accusation Surfaces<\/h2>\n

The controversy ignited when Lala Kent, known for her role in \u2018Vanderpump Rules,\u2019 stated on her podcast, \u2018Untraditionally Lala,\u2019 that Mauricio Umansky had sent her a direct message (DM) asking her out for coffee. Kent claimed this message arrived shortly after she had discussed Umansky\u2019s separation from his wife, Kyle Richards, on her previous podcast, \u2018Give Them Lala.\u2019 She suggested that Umansky\u2019s DM might have been an attempt at damage control.<\/p>\n

During her podcast appearance, Kent asserted that she never opened the private message from Umansky and stated there was \u201cnot a chance\u201d she would have agreed to meet him. This narrative painted Umansky in a potentially unfavorable light, implying he was seeking a romantic connection amidst his marital difficulties.<\/p>\n

Umansky\u2019s Rebuttal<\/h2>\n

Mauricio Umansky, however, presented a starkly different version of events. While admitting to sending Kent a message, he insisted that her portrayal of the interaction was inaccurate and lacked crucial context. \u201cI did message her because she was talking shit, and I said, \u2018Hey, you wanna talk shit about me, I\u2019ll fucking talk to you,'\u201d Umansky told TMZ.<\/p>\n

He further elaborated on the discrepancy, pointing out a key detail from Kent\u2019s own account. \u201cShe said in the podcast that she never opened the text,\u201d Umansky explained. \u201cThe last word on my text \u2014 and it\u2019s a long text \u2014 says, \u2018Let\u2019s have coffee.\u2019 And in her podcast, she says I invited [her] to have coffee. The only way she knew that I invited her to have a coffee is if she would\u2019ve opened the fucking text.\u201d This statement directly challenges Kent\u2019s claim that she never read the message, suggesting she must have opened it to know the content of his invitation.<\/p>\n

TMZ subsequently obtained and published a screenshot of the alleged DM exchange, which appeared to support Umansky\u2019s assertion that his message concluded with an invitation for coffee. The screenshot showed a lengthy message from Umansky, ending with the specific phrase, \u201cLet\u2019s have coffee.\u201d This evidence directly contradicted Kent\u2019s claim of not opening the message and knowing its contents.<\/p>\n

The Nature of the Message<\/h2>\n

Umansky\u2019s defense hinges on the idea that his message was not a romantic overture but a direct response to Kent\u2019s public commentary about his personal life. He framed it as an attempt to address her criticism head-on, rather than a clandestine attempt to solicit a date. The implication is that Kent twisted the context of his message to create a more sensational narrative for her podcast audience.<\/p>\n

The real estate mogul\u2019s frustration was palpable as he described Kent as \u201csuch a fucking liar it\u2019s not even funny, dude.\u201d He expressed disbelief at her claims, suggesting that her story was not only untrue but also absurd. Umansky indicated that he had considered releasing the message himself but decided to address it publicly after Kent\u2019s podcast aired.<\/p>\n

Public Figures and Public Commentary<\/h2>\n

This incident highlights the complex relationship between public figures and the media, especially in the age of social media and podcasts. Both Umansky and Kent are well-known personalities whose lives are often scrutinized and discussed publicly. Kent, as a podcast host, has a platform to share her opinions and experiences, while Umansky, as a prominent businessman and reality TV figure, is also subject to public interest.<\/p>\n

The situation underscores the potential for misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation of interactions when they are relayed through different platforms and narratives. Umansky\u2019s strong denial and the evidence he presented suggest that Kent may have exaggerated or fabricated aspects of the story for dramatic effect. The core of the dispute lies in the intent and reception of a single direct message, amplified by the public platforms of both individuals.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways from the Exchange:<\/h2>\n