What's Good for the Gander is Good for the Goose - Kardashian-ex should get HALF

[Superbelt]

You knew what I meant.

Eh, mayhap.

Anyway, like I said: Kris isn't looking for divorce settlement money here. He wants an annulment, and maybe damages for fraud.

[ThankGod4Walsh]

She's valued at 35 million total. He makes 12 million a year. In all likelihood for the 72 days they were together he out-earned her.

Will the reverse-gender warrior now argue that he should have to pay her?

Somehow I doubt it.

She made $18 million from May 2011 to May 2012.

Try again.

And besides, Humphries isn't after the money (he did after all turn down $10 mil), he wants an annulment (not a divorce) on the grounds that she married him for publicity/entertainment purposes.

He got played and he's not happy about it.

Considering how short-term that marriage was, she could simply admit that she did it for publicity, get an annulment, and this would all be over with.

That's what Humphries wants- an annulment, not a divorce. That's what this is all about.

Grounds for Civil Annulment

Grounds for civil annulment vary slightly from state to state. Generally, an annulment requires that at least one of the following reasons exists:

Misrepresentation or fraud. For example, if a spouse lied about her capacity to have children, that she had reached the age of consent, or that she was not married to someone else, an annulment could be granted.

Concealment. For example, if a spouse concealed an addiction to alcohol or drugs, a felony conviction, children from a prior relationship, a sexually transmitted disease, or impotency, an annulment might be granted.

Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage. Refusal or inability of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with the other spouse can be grounds for an annulment.

Misunderstanding. For example, if one person wanted children and the other did not, an annulment might be granted.

Most annulments take place after marriages of a very short duration -- a few weeks or months -- so there are usually no assets or debts to divide, or children for whom custody, visitation, and child support are a concern.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...rce-30234.html

Kardashian filed for divorce. Humphries filed for annulment. An annulment would be quicker AND cheaper for Kim, but she refuses to agree because that would be an admission that the marriage was a fraud and done for publicity.

In the end I don't really care what two fame-hounds end up doing. I take issue with your assertion that he made more than her while married, and your "reverse-gender warrior" crap is just another one of your little smears intended to de-legitimize what I have to say.

You're a one-trick pony. And a sad one at that.

[The Q]

I wonder if she can't do it for the way the rights were sold to the wedding.

[The Q]

Yeah, I know the thread is an open forum for men to b!tch about how bad their lot in life is simply because they're men, the point of my post is that the case the thread is predicated on is somehow even worse at serving this purpose than the argument itself.

I personally don't. But I laugh when the woman gets the kid basically not matter what unless she belongs in a nut house, or how Braylon Edwards has to pay 10k/mo in child support to a woman who is a professional model (a REAL professional model, like that was her FT income IIRC). Even if the woman does make more than the man he's less likely to get alimony than if the gender roles were reversed.

[Nastradamus]

Well, after reading the article: He's looking for an annulment and charges of fraud against her. Not a divorce. So things like the pre-nup may be non factors. He wants to get all the video from the Kardashian reality show because he thinks there is evidence there that Kim never was interested in marriage (worlds loudest 'Duh') and did it only for publicity, which does harm to him.

It does harm to him if he didn't have the same motives that is. I agree though, if he gets such a ruling, he shoudl get half like a woman does.

[Nastradamus]

She made $18 million from May 2011 to May 2012.

Try again.

And besides, Humphries isn't after the money (he did after all turn down $10 mil), he wants an annulment (not a divorce) on the grounds that she married him for publicity/entertainment purposes.

He got played and he's not happy about it.

Considering how short-term that marriage was, she could simply admit that she did it for publicity, get an annulment, and this would all be over with.

That's what Humphries wants- an annulment, not a divorce. That's what this is all about.



http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...rce-30234.html

Kardashian filed for divorce. Humphries filed for annulment. An annulment would be quicker AND cheaper for Kim, but she refuses to agree because that would be an admission that the marriage was a fraud and done for publicity.

In the end I don't really care what two fame-hounds end up doing. I take issue with your assertion that he made more than her while married, and your "reverse-gender warrior" crap is just another one of your little smears intended to de-legitimize what I have to say.

You're a one-trick pony. And a sad one at that.

He made 12 mil in basketball salaries and likely the 18 mil that she earned in that year included the money they got from the wedding. Its very possible that he made more than her all things considered. I don't really care though. The point isn't that he did make more than her, the question is would you have the same agenda if he did.

Also, he wants the annulment as part of a plan to sue for fraud, so your little line about not dividing assets is pointless.

and really, I don't care about any of this, but jesus christ man, get off your high horse. Did you read this post?

[PopeyeJones]

In the end I don't really care what two fame-hounds end up doing. I take issue with your assertion that he made more than her while married, and your "reverse-gender warrior" crap is just another one of your little smears intended to de-legitimize what I have to say.

Nope.

You had the second post in the thread and you agreed "Absolutely" (your word) that he should receive half of her net-worth (LOL), you know, so as not to be "sexist" about it.

That's all you. You really don't need my help at all.

[ThankGod4Walsh]

Nope.

You had the second post in the thread and you agreed "Absolutely" (your word) that he should receive half of her net-worth (LOL), you know, so as not to be "sexist" about it.

That's all you. You really don't need my help at all.

If the man has to divvy up his stuff, the woman should have to as well.

Considering their circumstances (prenup, one wants annulment, one wants divorce, earnings similarity from 2010-2012, short cohabitation) it's a moot point except for the general argument that one sex should not be favored over the other in divorce proceedings.

That's not "reverse-gender warrior" stuff. That's just equality.

[ThankGod4Walsh]

He made 12 mil in basketball salaries and likely the 18 mil that she earned in that year included the money they got from the wedding. Its very possible that he made more than her all things considered. I don't really care though. The point isn't that he did make more than her, the question is would you have the same agenda if he did.

Also, he wants the annulment as part of a plan to sue for fraud, so your little line about not dividing assets is pointless.

and really, I don't care about any of this, but jesus christ man, get off your high horse. Did you read this post?

And the year before that he made like $3.25 million. She made about $5 million.

She's earned more than him every single year since 2010.

Thus Popeye not only lied, but decided to try to de-legitimize my statements.

They had a prenup, he ain't getting anything that was there before he said "I do." And it's doubtful he gets anything from their time together either through annulment OR divorce.

What he wants is to prove that it was a publicity stunt so he can sue her for fraud apart from the divorce proceedings, and to not have "divorce" on his background.

[PatsFan2003]

And the year before that he made like $3.25 million. She made about $5 million.

She's earned more than him every single year since 2010.

Thus Popeye not only lied, but decided to try to de-legitimize my statements.

They had a prenup, he ain't getting anything that was there before he said "I do." And it's doubtful he gets anything from their time together either through annulment OR divorce.

What he wants is to prove that it was a publicity stunt so he can sue her for fraud apart from the divorce proceedings, and to not have "divorce" on his background.

So it's all just to make a point, right?


It must be good to be a lawyer in Hollywood.

[ThankGod4Walsh]

So it's all just to make a point, right?


It must be good to be a lawyer in Hollywood.

I don't know the guy's motivations in his own mind. I only know what he's doing and what it suggests.

The simple fact is, he didn't make more than Kim since 2010 in any single year, and my support of equality under law is something that bleeding heart liberals should be perfectly content with.

Instead, I'm labeled a "reverse-gender warrior" because of my position that whatever the court decides it should be split down the middle.

[PatsFan2003]

I don't know the guy's motivations in his own mind. I only know what he's doing and what it suggests.

The simple fact is, he didn't make more than Kim since 2010 in any single year, and my support of equality under law is something that bleeding heart liberals should be perfectly content with.

Instead, I'm labeled a "reverse-gender warrior" because of my position that whatever the court decides it should be split down the middle.

I think this has happened before where the man got alimony instead of the woman because she made much more, so I'm not sure what the big hubbub is about.

Considering they were married for 2 1/2 months and their salaries weren't that far apart I can't imagine he should get much. If we're seriously talking about fairness.

[Rear Admiral]

Instead, I'm labeled a "reverse-gender warrior" because of my position that whatever the court decides it should be split down the middle.

It will be that way for at least another generation or two, Walshie, until the feminazi's beat all chivalry to its final death. There will always be the misguided who can only get laid by not sticking with men, as one, against this obnoxious court system that blatantly disfavors men in all things divorce. That said, it wasn't always that way, we have simply, as we are wont to do, overcorrected - and women will not give up those 'hard fought gains' without a fight. They want equality as they define it, and they have their chorus of Popeye's echoing their 'reverse-gender-warrior' propaganda. Karma usually has a way of settling all scores in the 'love' if not the 'war' department.

[The Q]

It will be that way for at least another generation or two, Walshie, until the feminazi's beat all chivalry to its final death. There will always be the misguided who can only get laid by not sticking with men, as one, against this obnoxious court system that blatantly disfavors men in all things divorce. That said, it wasn't always that way, we have simply, as we are wont to do, overcorrected - and women will not give up those 'hard fought gains' without a fight. They want equality as they define it, and they have their chorus of Popeye's echoing their 'reverse-gender-warrior' propaganda. Karma usually has a way of settling all scores in the 'love' if not the 'war' department.

so basically they want "equality" plus the other ridiculous BS that has been thrown their way (almost guaranteed custody and the simply atrocious cases regarding things actuarial-based like pension plans)?

Oh yeah, that really sounds "equal"