Years after Slash and Perla Ferrar finalized their divorce, the former couple is back in court — and this time, the dispute is about a very expensive accounting mistake.

The Guns N’ Roses guitarist claims that Ferrar received about $1.5 million more in spousal support than she was supposed to because his business manager continued making payments at an outdated rate.

Rather than asking Ferrar to immediately return the money, Slash is asking a Los Angeles court to let him apply the alleged overpayment against future support he still owes.

The filing turns what seemed like a long-settled divorce into a new financial battle, and it raises an obvious question: how could an error involving more than a million dollars continue for so long?

According to Slash, the answer comes down to the way his original support obligations were structured — and a failure to adjust payments after those obligations changed.

Their Divorce Settlement Was Worth Millions

Slash, whose legal name is Saul Hudson, married Ferrar in 2001.

The couple later separated, and Slash filed for divorce in 2014 after more than a decade of marriage. They share two sons.

Their divorce was ultimately settled in 2018 after years of negotiations.

Under the agreement, Ferrar received a multimillion-dollar financial package that included both a lump-sum payment and ongoing support obligations.

PEOPLE reported that the settlement required Slash to pay Ferrar $6.6 million, along with $100,000 per month in spousal support and $39,000 per month in child support.

Those figures made the divorce one of the more expensive celebrity settlements of its kind.

But the amount of spousal support was not meant to remain fixed forever.

That detail is now at the center of Slash’s new court filing.

Slash Says the Payment Amount Was Supposed to Drop

According to Slash’s filing, the settlement included limits that reduced how much spousal support Ferrar would receive after certain financial thresholds were reached.

Slash says those caps eventually kicked in.

The problem, he claims, is that his business manager did not adjust the payments accordingly.

Instead, Ferrar allegedly continued receiving the higher monthly amount for an extended period.

Slash argues that the mistake resulted in a significant overpayment — approximately $1.5 million in total.

In other words, he is not claiming that Ferrar secretly took money or violated the divorce agreement.

His argument is that his own financial team kept sending too much.

That distinction matters because the dispute is not framed as an accusation of fraud.

It is an effort to correct what Slash describes as an administrative error that continued long enough to become a seven-figure problem.

He Is Not Simply Asking for $1.5 Million Back

The solution Slash is proposing is more complicated than demanding a refund.

According to the court filing, he wants permission to offset the alleged $1.5 million overpayment against future spousal support payments he would otherwise owe Ferrar.

That would mean Ferrar would not necessarily have to write him a check for the full amount.

Instead, Slash could reduce or suspend future payments until the claimed overpayment had effectively been balanced out.

The request could have a major practical effect.

If the court agrees with Slash’s calculations, Ferrar could see a substantial change in the support she receives going forward.

If the judge rejects the request, Slash could be required to continue paying under the existing schedule despite his claim that he has already paid far more than necessary.

The court will therefore have to determine whether an overpayment actually occurred, how much it totaled and whether Slash is legally entitled to recover it through future credits.

The Error Allegedly Lasted for Years

The size of the claimed mistake is what makes the case unusual.

A small support-payment discrepancy can happen because of changes in income, taxes or calculations.

A $1.5 million discrepancy suggests that the problem continued for a long period before being corrected.

TMZ reported that Slash claims his business manager kept sending payments based on the previous formula even after contractual caps reduced Ferrar’s entitlement.

Over time, the difference accumulated.

That means the dispute is not about one giant accidental transfer.

It is allegedly the result of repeated monthly payments that were individually too high.

By the time the error was identified, Slash says the total excess had reached roughly $1.5 million.

Ferrar Has Not Publicly Answered the Claim

As of PEOPLE’s report, Ferrar had not issued a public response directly addressing Slash’s new filing.

That leaves several major questions unanswered.

She could dispute the accounting.

She could argue that the payments were made correctly under the settlement.

She could challenge Slash’s interpretation of the support caps.

Or she could accept some portion of the claimed overpayment while disagreeing about how it should be repaid.

Until she responds in court, the public has only Slash’s version of how the error occurred.

That is important because celebrity divorce filings often present only one side of a broader financial dispute.

For now, Slash is the one asking the court to intervene.

Ferrar’s position may become clearer as the case moves forward.

Their Marriage Has Been Over for Years, but the Financial Connection Remains

The dispute is a reminder that divorce does not always end a couple’s financial relationship.

Slash and Ferrar have been legally separated for years.

Their marriage ended.

Their settlement was signed.

But ongoing spousal support meant that money continued flowing between them long after the divorce itself was completed.

That kind of arrangement can create complications when payment formulas are tied to income, caps or other changing conditions.

For high-earning celebrities, even a small accounting error can become enormous when multiplied over months or years.

In Slash’s case, the alleged difference reached seven figures.

And because the payments were apparently made voluntarily through his financial representatives, recovering the money is not necessarily as simple as reversing a bank transfer.

A judge may need to decide how much was overpaid and whether future support should be reduced to compensate.

A New Court Fight Over an Old Divorce

Slash and Ferrar’s divorce once appeared to be settled.

Eight years after their 2018 agreement, however, one part of that settlement is back under scrutiny.

Slash says the support system kept paying Ferrar too much after contractual limits should have lowered the amount.

He claims the mistake cost him approximately $1.5 million.

Now he wants the court to prevent him from effectively paying that money twice.

For Ferrar, the outcome could determine how much support she receives in the future.

For Slash, it could determine whether a years-long accounting error becomes permanent.

And for anyone looking at the case from the outside, the most surprising part may be how an incorrect payment could continue long enough to reach $1.5 million before someone finally noticed.

That is now the question a court may have to untangle.

The divorce may have ended years ago.

The accounting, apparently, did not.