Slash is asking a Los Angeles judge to resolve what he says was a very expensive accounting mistake involving payments to his ex-wife, Perla Ferrar.

The Guns N’ Roses guitarist — whose legal name is Saul Hudson — claims that an error in calculating part of his spousal-support obligation caused him to pay approximately $1.5 million more than required.

But Slash is not simply demanding that Ferrar return the entire amount in a check.

Instead, according to an Aug. 13 court filing obtained by PEOPLE, he wants the judge to allow the alleged overpayment to be credited against support payments he would otherwise owe in the future.

The dispute comes years after the former couple finalized the financial terms of their divorce, and Slash says the problem can be traced to one specific part of their support formula that was not properly adjusted over several years.

Slash Says the Error Involved Income-Based Support

Slash and Ferrar married in 2001 and share two sons.

He filed for divorce in 2014, and the pair eventually reached a settlement in 2018 after years of legal proceedings.

Under the arrangement described in recent court documents, Slash agreed to pay Ferrar $100,000 per month in spousal support.

But that fixed monthly payment was not the only amount involved.

The settlement also included additional support tied to Slash’s income, subject to certain limits or caps.

Those income-based payments are now at the center of the dispute.

Slash claims that his business manager failed to properly adjust those extra payments when the applicable caps changed during 2021, 2022 and 2023.

According to his filing, that mistake caused him to continue paying amounts above what the settlement actually required.

Over time, he says, the excess added up to roughly $1.5 million.

The Mistake Allegedly Continued for Years

A single incorrect support payment would be relatively easy to identify.

Slash’s claim is more complicated because the alleged error apparently repeated across several years.

The guitarist says the income-based portion of his obligation was supposed to change as certain contractual limits changed.

But his financial team allegedly did not make the necessary adjustments.

As a result, he contends that Ferrar continued receiving additional payments calculated under the wrong figures.

By the time the problem was discovered, the cumulative difference had reached seven figures.

The filing portrays the issue less as a new fight over how much support Ferrar deserves and more as an effort to enforce the mathematical terms of an agreement that was already in place.

Slash is essentially arguing that the payments exceeded the amount required by the settlement because the formula was applied incorrectly.

He Is Not Asking for $1.5 Million Back Immediately

The most interesting part of Slash’s request may be what he wants the court to do next.

Rather than demanding immediate repayment of the entire alleged overpayment, Slash wants the court to treat the $1.5 million as a credit against future support obligations.

That would mean Ferrar would not necessarily have to produce the money herself.

Instead, Slash could reduce or offset upcoming payments until the alleged overpayment had been accounted for.

That approach could turn a seven-figure repayment dispute into an adjustment of future financial obligations.

Whether the judge agrees will depend on the terms of the couple’s settlement, the accuracy of Slash’s accounting and how California family law applies to the claimed overpayment.

For now, the $1.5 million figure represents Slash’s allegation in his filing, not a final judicial determination.

The Divorce Was Settled Years Ago

The latest filing adds another chapter to a relationship that has been legally over for years.

Slash and Ferrar were married for more than a decade before he filed for divorce in 2014.

Their divorce proceedings attracted significant attention because of Slash’s wealth, music career and ongoing earnings.

By 2018, the two had reached a settlement that established their financial arrangements.

The $100,000 monthly spousal-support payment alone amounts to $1.2 million per year before any additional income-based amounts are considered.

That extra income component makes the agreement more complicated than a simple fixed monthly payment.

For a musician whose annual income can fluctuate depending on touring, royalties and other work, tying part of the support obligation to earnings can require careful annual calculations.

Slash’s filing suggests that those calculations are exactly where things went wrong.

Why a Small Accounting Change Became a $1.5 Million Problem

The size of the alleged mistake illustrates how quickly errors can compound when large recurring payments are involved.

If a support agreement includes both a fixed payment and an additional percentage or income-based amount, every yearly adjustment matters.

A figure that is only modestly incorrect in one calculation can become much larger when repeated month after month or year after year.

In Slash’s case, he claims the relevant caps changed across three consecutive years.

If his business manager continued using outdated limits, the resulting overpayment would not necessarily be obvious from any single transfer.

It could simply appear to be part of the normal support structure until someone revisited the calculations.

That is apparently what Slash now says happened.

The Court Still Has to Decide Whether He Is Right

Slash’s filing does not mean the alleged overpayment has already been established.

A judge must still evaluate the claim.

That could involve reviewing the original divorce settlement, the income-based support formula, the caps that applied during each relevant year and the payments actually made.

Ferrar could also challenge Slash’s interpretation or accounting.

Until the court rules, it is more accurate to describe the $1.5 million as the amount Slash says he overpaid.

The issue is therefore not simply whether a bookkeeping mistake occurred.

The court may also have to decide whether any proven overpayment can legally be used to reduce future support.

Those are separate questions.

Slash first has to establish that he paid too much.

Then he has to persuade the judge to approve the remedy he is requesting.

It Is a Different Kind of Celebrity Divorce Dispute

Celebrity divorce stories often revolve around new allegations, custody battles or arguments over assets.

This one is unusually specific.

The couple’s divorce was settled years ago.

The monthly support obligation already exists.

The current disagreement centers on whether a changing financial formula was calculated correctly.

That specificity is what makes the dispute stand out.

Slash is not asking the court to eliminate spousal support altogether.

He is not simply arguing that the original settlement was unfair.

He is saying his own side made an accounting error and that the mistake caused him to pay approximately $1.5 million too much.

Now he wants the court to make that money count toward what he would otherwise owe later.

A Seven-Figure Error the Judge May Have to Untangle

For Slash, one of rock music’s most recognizable guitarists, $1.5 million is now at the center of a dispute that may ultimately come down to spreadsheets, payment records and the exact wording of a 2018 divorce agreement.

According to his filing, his business manager failed to reduce the income-based portion of Ferrar’s support payments as required when certain caps changed.

The mistake allegedly continued through 2021, 2022 and 2023.

By the time it was discovered, Slash says the difference had reached approximately $1.5 million.

He does not want the money simply forgotten.

And he is not necessarily asking Ferrar to hand it all back at once.

Instead, Slash wants a judge to treat the alleged overpayment as a credit against future support.

What began, according to him, as an accounting error has now become a seven-figure legal question.