A civil complaint says Tamir Poleg offered a subordinate over $3 million and a Park City home to end her marriage; both he and the woman dispute the allegation.
A federal lawsuit accuses Real Brokerage Chief Executive Officer Tamir Poleg of offering a female subordinate a multimillion-dollar package — including cash tied to company stock and a $1.5 million Park City, Utah, home — if she left her husband for him, according to filings in U.S. District Court. The case stems from a January 2025 split between the employee and her spouse and centers on messages the husband claims show an “indecent proposal.”
The complaint, filed by the husband, seeks $5 million in damages and accuses Poleg of intentionally interfering with the marriage while leading the publicly traded real estate firm. The plaintiff says the CEO used his position and wealth to influence a subordinate’s personal decisions, contributing to the couple’s February 2025 divorce. Poleg denies offering money to induce a divorce and says the relationship was brief and began after he separated from his own spouse. The woman, an agent at the company, says her marriage ended for personal reasons and rejects claims that payments or promises drove the split. The lawsuit puts both corporate governance and Utah’s little-used “alienation of affection” claim under a spotlight.
According to the suit, the events unfolded between late 2024 and early 2025. The plaintiff alleges that in early 2025, Poleg discussed providing more than $3 million derived from company stock and other funds, plus a Park City home valued at about $1.5 million. The filing cites a Feb. 3, 2025 email that purportedly contained instructions for accessing $1.5 million, and claims that on the same day the CEO sold more than $600,000 in stock. The complaint also references trips, gifts and assurances of financial support, characterizing them as part of a plan to persuade the employee to end her marriage. In a company message to agents circulated days before the suit drew wider attention, Poleg acknowledged a “brief relationship” with the agent but said there was no quid pro quo tied to her divorce and no misuse of company assets.
The defendants and the woman at the center of the case dispute the premise of the filing. Poleg says any interactions were consensual and occurred after he and the agent were each separated from their spouses. He further says the email cited by the plaintiff described personal support unrelated to coercing a divorce and that the stock sale was lawful and not a clandestine funding mechanism. The agent, who joined Real in January 2024 and shares two children with her former husband, has said publicly that the marriage ended for reasons unrelated to the CEO and that claims of bribery or pressure do not reflect her experience. The complaint does not list criminal allegations; it focuses on civil harms, including emotional distress and the loss of consortium.
Utah is among a handful of states that still recognize “alienation of affection,” a tort that allows a spouse to seek damages from a third party alleged to have undermined a marriage. Lawmakers in recent sessions have debated its future, and court fights are uncommon but not unheard of. The case also arrives amid separate corporate storylines for Real Brokerage, which has faced scrutiny typical of fast-growing brokerages. The company, valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has navigated leadership changes and litigation over the past year. None of those matters, however, directly establishes wrongdoing in this dispute, which hinges on private communications, timing and intent more than on broader industry factors.
Procedurally, the lawsuit was filed in Utah in late 2025 and later appeared on the federal docket. In mid-January 2026, counsel for Poleg filed an answer, signaling the case will move into discovery. No trial date has been set. The plaintiff requests a jury and outlines claims that could lead to sworn testimony, document production and depositions of the parties as well as company personnel. The defense is expected to challenge causation — whether the CEO’s conduct, as described, actually led to the breakdown of the marriage — and to test whether the damages theory meets Utah standards for alienation-of-affection claims. Judges sometimes narrow such cases before trial if elements are not met.
People close to the couple have not publicly detailed the precise timeline of their separation beyond the filing’s references to early February 2025. The complaint cites text messages and emails but does not append a full, publicly viewable set of exhibits in the initial summaries. It also does not specify whether any corporate board approvals were sought for the alleged support or whether compliance officers reviewed the stock activity described. Real Brokerage has not announced any internal disciplinary action related to the allegations. The woman remains adamant that her choices were her own and that she was not induced by money to leave the marriage.
Legal experts say the case will likely turn on three questions: what exactly was promised and when; whether any promises, if made, were intended to interfere with the marriage; and whether the alleged interference was a substantial factor in the divorce. Alienation-of-affection claims require proof of wrongful conduct that leads to a loss of consortium; mere romantic involvement is typically insufficient. Emails, financial records and contemporaneous messages — if admitted — could become central exhibits. A judge could also be asked to decide whether any claimed offers amount to protected speech or to actionable inducement under Utah law.
Real Brokerage operates nationally through a cloud-based model and touts growth in agent count and transactions. Industry analysts say leadership controversies can distract firms that rely on recruiting and retention, though the market impact of this case remains unclear. The company has faced unrelated employment litigation over the past year, including a high-profile dispute with a former finance executive that later resolved, drawing attention to how small corporate teams manage risk as they scale. Investors and agents will watch for any disclosures in quarterly filings that reference the lawsuit, depending on materiality thresholds and accounting rules.
As of Friday, the federal docket shows the case active with an answer on file and no hearings set. The next milestone is likely a scheduling order that will set deadlines for discovery and motions. Either side could seek early judgment on specific claims. Barring a settlement, the parties would exchange documents and take depositions through spring and summer, with any trial date to follow. For now, the allegations remain unproven. The CEO and the agent deny that money or a home was offered as a condition to dissolve a marriage, and the plaintiff maintains those inducements were real and decisive.
Author note: Last updated January 30, 2026.