Matthew Whitman Lazenby, CEO of Bal Harbour Shops and member of the family that has owned the luxury shopping center for more than six decades, is currently involved in a contentious divorce with his estranged wife, Kristin Lazenby. Court records reveal ongoing disputes over access to financial documents related to Bal Harbour Shops and the removal of a foster dog from their shared home in Asheville, North Carolina.
Kristin Lazenby is seeking detailed financial information, including bank statements and ledgers from Whitman Family Development, which owns Bal Harbour Shops at 9700 Collins Avenue. She also wants Matthew’s general partnership stake in the company to be considered part of their marital assets.
“It is unfortunate that the Bal Harbour Shops have been thrust into the Lazenbys’ divorce proceedings which were intended to be a private matter,” said Matthew’s attorney Kathyrn Hamilton in an email statement. “Mr. Lazenby’s personal involvement in this multi-generational family business predates their marriage.”
Attempts to reach Kristin’s lawyer Paul Leinoff for comment were unsuccessful.
Bal Harbour Shops was founded by Stanley Whitman in 1965 on land he acquired eight years earlier. The open-air mall features high-end retailers such as Chanel, Prada, Dolce & Gabbana, and department stores like Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. The property has undergone recent expansion efforts, including a $200 million addition funded by a $550 million loan secured in 2019 and a refinancing deal worth $740 million completed in 2024.
Matthew joined Whitman Family Development in 2003 and became CEO about ten years later. He married Kristin in 2009; they have three children together. Kristin filed for divorce in July 2024, stating that the marriage was “irretrievably broken.” She is requesting alimony, attorney fees, and an equitable distribution of assets that include three homes located in Bal Harbour, Santa Rosa Beach, and Asheville.
The couple’s legal battle has included disagreements over whether Matthew’s partnership interest should be treated as a marital asset. During an October hearing regarding her request for access to company books, forensic accountant Philip Schecter testified that determining whether Matthew actively participates as decision maker would require reviewing check signatures spanning twelve years.
Leinoff argued before Judge Christine Bandin that Matthew obtained his partnership interest during their marriage and emphasized the need for more information before depositions could proceed. Hamilton countered that there was no evidence showing marital funds were used to acquire any company interest.
In addition to disputes over finances, Matthew filed a motion requesting either removal of a foster dog adopted by Kristin or sole use of their Asheville residence. According to court filings from October, Matthew claimed Kristin brought home the dog without his knowledge or consent; he alleges it killed pet birds and caused significant property damage inside the house.
Court documents describe incidents where damage occurred after dogs were left inside with no outdoor access: “The most recent catastrophe caused by the wife has resulted in the expensive Ipe hardwood flooring in the mudroom being destroyed,” one motion reads. Another states: “When Matthew returned home, he found ‘a minefield of dried-up excrement everywhere… requiring the husband to spend over an hour to clean it up himself.’”
Kristin responded by accusing Matthew of violating prior agreements about shared use of their Asheville home; she stated during deposition that he now seeks her removal from the property entirely.
A hearing on both matters—the status of the foster dog and occupancy rights at their Asheville house—is scheduled for April.
