Despite an existing prenuptial agreement, NBA star Kris Humphries is gearing up for what is doubtless going to be a long and hard-fought legal battle against heiress and reality TV-star Kim Kardashian, filing for an annulment and suing on the grounds that their 72-day marriage was nothing but a fraud. Though not generally in such high profile, this kind of battle is one that many Colorado divorce attorneys have faced, and it can often represent a tough fight.
The problem, as the article points out, is that in California there is a conflict of interests that results when one party (in this case Kardashian) files for divorce while the other (Humphries) wants an annulment. It then falls to a judge to decide which petition to grant, and this process can take a very long time to play out.
In an even stranger turn of events, Humphries has filed paperwork stating that if he cannot have an annulment, then he wants a legal separation instead of a divorce. You’ve got to wonder what game Humphries is playing here, and it’s likely that both the courts and Kardashian’s divorce attorneys will ask the same question: “Which do you want, Kris? Do you want the marriage to never have happened, or do you want to stay married?”
These are two completely opposite states of being—never having been married (legally), or still being married, and just not together. Are the motives financial on Humphries’ part? Is he trying to remain attached to the Kardashian legacy if he cannot have an annulment, or is he simply trying to punish Kardashian by stopping either of them from being able to get re-married in the future? Whatever the reason, such paradoxical claims in a court of law don’t seem likely to turn out well.
