Los Angeles, CA—A business agreement intended to stabilize a struggling Crenshaw Boulevard soul food landmark has instead led to a dispute between longtime South Los Angeles restaurateur Chef Marilyn and her current partners, with both sides offering sharply different interpretations of what transpired.

      At issue is control of Chef Marilyn’s restaurant, brand, and day-to-day operations following an arrangement made earlier this year during a period of financial strain.

      In a recent public video statement, a visibly frustrated Chef Marilyn said she had lost control of her business and been repositioned as an employee within the establishment she founded.

      According to Chef Marilyn, she initially connected with the two women now operating the business—Cierra Carter and Channing B. Smith—at a February 2026 fundraiser held in support of her restaurant. She said they later returned with a proposal to help stabilize the business after learning of her existing debts.

      Chef Marilyn said she understood the agreement to involve forming a new business entity with a 60/40 revenue split and a planned 90-day review period. However, she now contends the finalized arrangement resulted in a different structure—one that placed operational control and ownership with the other parties while limiting her role.

      “I’m really hurt and losing everything. I’m 71 years old… This is not right.”

      Smith and Carter have publicly offered a different account of the agreement and its intent.

      In a video response posted to social media, they said a new business structure was created following bankruptcy-related challenges in order to keep the restaurant open, meet payroll, and address outstanding debts.

      “Once we talked more with Chef Marilyn, we realized we had to move quickly because she was on the verge of losing her business due to debt,” Carter said, adding that employees had gone unpaid and bills were outstanding. “We set up a new structure to keep the restaurant open, pay the bills and employees… We also paid for her bankruptcy attorney.”

      “We asked Chef Marilyn if she wanted to be a member of this new structure and she said no… she only wanted to be a chef,” Smith said. “So, we made a deal where she would receive proceeds and be compensated for the use of her name, likeness, and recipes.”

      Chef Marilyn disputes that characterization, maintaining she did not intend to relinquish ownership of her business or brand. She also raised concerns about access to certain revenue streams, including funds tied to an account she says she independently secured.

      The two sides also differ on whether efforts have been made to resolve the matter privately.

      “We have tried over and over to get her to meet with us,” Smith said.  “We’ve paid Marilyn everything that we owe her so far under our deal. Instead, she made this video saying terrible things about us. We’re heartbroken.”

      Chef Marilyn has indicated she would like to resolve the matter through direct conversation, with legal representation present, in hopes of reaching a mutual understanding. For now, both sides remain at odds over how the agreement was structured and what was intended—leaving the future of the business relationship uncertain.

      “We don’t want people to walk away from the restaurant… It will only hurt the employees and the business we’re working so hard to save,” Carter added.