Mariah Carey Did NOT Dump Bryan Tanaka For Being Poor, Despite Report
Mariah Carey did not dump Bryan Tanaka because he was too poor for her, despite a ridiculous report. Gossip Cop can exclusively debunk this claim. We’re told it’s not true.
The insane allegation comes from Life & Style, which maintains the singer dumped Tanaka because, in comparison to her former partners, he wasn’t rich enough. The tabloid contends that Tommy Mottola, Carey’s husband from 1993-1998, gave the star “her first taste of the luxe life.” The publication also makes mention of her millionaire ex-husband Nick Cannon and most recent ex-fiance, billionaire James Packer.
A so-called “insider” tells the magazine, “It was fun while it lasted, but Bryan’s too poor.” “Money is very important to Mariah and if you don’t have it, you need to eventually step aside,” adds the outlet’s unnamed and seemingly made-up source. The supposed “insider” further alleges the singer dumped Tanaka because he couldn’t “give Mariah the kind of lavish life she’s used to.”
The publication’s article is illogical. If Carey was so concerned with money, of which she herself has quite a lot, then she wouldn’t have dated Tanaka in the first place. It’s not like the backup dancer misled her into thinking he was loaded. She knew from the outset that she was wealthier one.
Not withstanding, Gossip Cop looked into the magazine’s claims. A source close to Carey tells us, “These tabloids constantly make up headlines,” and the current contention about Tanaka being too poor for the singer is untrue. Meanwhile, a rep for Carey also assures us the publication’s story is all “lies” and “ridiculous.”
Life & Style actually has a rich history of publishing inaccuracies about Carey. Earlier this month, Gossip Cop called out the tabloid for untruthfully claiming Carey gave Tanaka $25,000 a month to buy her gifts. And shortly before that tall tale, we corrected the outlet for making up an absurd story about Carey giving Tanaka a life-size doll of herself for when she’s away. Neither report was true, and the same goes for the magazine’s latest poor excuse for a story.