Liz Cho, an anchor at ABC-7 New York, and former NBC, ABC, and CBS host Josh Elliott have opted for arbitration to settle their increasingly public divorce, a move that shifts their dispute from the public court system to a more private venue. This decision comes just weeks before a scheduled divorce trial, which would have laid bare the details of their 15-month legal battle.
The couple, both 55, have been engaged in a highly contentious divorce proceeding in Connecticut's family court. The arbitration agreement aims to bring greater privacy to their proceedings, as trials are matters of public record.
In July, a ruling ordered Cho to provide any messages exchanged with potential extramarital partners over the past six years. The same ruling required her to submit communications with journalists about the divorce and details regarding a $500,000 transfer from a joint account to her daughter's. Elliott had previously agreed to a similar request from Cho in March.
Court filings have revealed sharp disagreements over personal belongings and household matters. One filing from Elliott's attorneys accused Cho of 'lashing out' over ownership of grapes in their shared $4 million Westport mansion, with one instance involving Elliott washing grapes for his daughter's lunch. Cho reportedly exclaimed the grapes were hers and Elliott was not permitted to put them in the child's lunch.
Elliott's legal team also alleged that Cho monitored his phone calls, rifled through his belongings, and exhibited erratic behavior, including locking doors and shutting off lights on his daughter during cold weather. They claimed Elliott only removed items from the home to create a "safe haven" for himself and his daughter.
The couple, who married in 2015 in Montecito, California, have daughters from previous marriages. Their living situation in the mansion also led to judicial intervention, with a judge approving a schedule for each party and their daughters to occupy the home around the Christmas holidays.
Elliott filed for divorce in June of the previous year, citing the marriage had "broken down irretrievably." This filing occurred shortly before their 10th wedding anniversary. The $500,000 transfer, made in October 2025, was described by Elliott's lawyers as an "improper scheme" to move a substantial marital asset, an allegation Cho did not formally respond to in the court filings.
While the specifics of the text message requests and the reasons for limiting them to six years, despite an 11-year marriage, remain unexplained, the move to arbitration suggests a desire for a swifter and more discreet resolution. Arbitration, though costly, is often favored for complex financial matters or stalled negotiations, offering increased privacy, speed, and control over the process. Both Cho and Elliott have agreed to bear the costs and have selected a retired judge to oversee the arbitration, which is slated to take place in October if approved by the court.