Kardashian-Humphries divorce could take some
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY
LOS ANGELES — Kim Kardashian’s divorce has engulfed her family and network, literally.
Attorneys for her estranged husband sought detailed records Wednesday about her reality shows and details of depositions with her mother and current boyfriend Kanye West to prove her 72-day marriage to NBA player Kris Humphries was a fraud.
The legal bickering means it is unlikely the couple will be granted a divorce, or annulment, as Humphries desires, before next year, attorneys and a judge said during a testy hearing.
Kardashian’s attorney Laura Wasser accused Humphries’ team of overreaching in the effort that has already resulted in $250,000 in legal fees for the model-actress. The acrimony over the breakup led lawyers for Humphries to recently try to serve West with a deposition subpoena —disguised in a Nordstrom’s box —at Kardashian’s home.
Humphries’ attorney Marshall Waller said the lack of cooperation from West’s attorneys and companies that work on Kardashian’s reality show were delaying the case. He said it could take a two-week trial if Humphries keeps pursuing an annulment based on fraud.
Waller said at the hearing that he wanted to prove Kardashian had “no intention of proceeding with this marriage. That it was basically a contrivance for the benefit of her show and to make money,” he said.
Wasser said the tactic was slowing the legal process and she intended to bill Humphries for her legal fees.
“To say that I’m frustrated would be an understatement,” Wasser said in the packed courtroom where 18 other cases were to be called. “I am at a loss to figure out what the holdup is. … It’s dragging on, it’s clogging resources.”
Several depositions have been taken, including one of Humphries in his home state of Minnesota, and his girlfriend is scheduled to undergo questioning next week.
The couple was married last summer in a lavish, star-studded, televised ceremony, but Kardashian soon filed for divorce on Oct. 31. Humphries responded a month later asking for an annulment, claiming the couple’s nuptials were based on fraud. He did not lay out specific evidence.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.