Humphries asks Kardashian for $7 million to divorce / Our legal system is flawed

Whether we’ve experienced it ourselves, have a friend or relative who has gone through one, or just by reading articles and forum posts, we all know that divorce can be a difficult ordeal. For many spouses, thinking clearly and separating their emotional pain from their objective decision-making is much easier said than done.

But sometimes, I just have to wonder if divorce makes some people lose their minds. Take, for instance, Kris Humphries.

He was married to Kim Kardashian for 72 days, and it is reported that he’s asking for a settlement of $7 million – or else he’ll drag his divorce out through a long, public trial that is sure to humiliate many people (read the Divorce Magazine article here). That’s almost $100k a day.

He also earned $1 million when E! broadcast his wedding (seriously!) and received $300,000 for appearing on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” That’s $1.3 million right there for a wedding that lasted just days.

And the story gets worse. Supposedly, there’s also a prenuptial agreement in place saying he is not to receive any payment in case of a divorce.

It’s not like Kris Humphries is financially struggling. He has a $24 million contract to play professional basketball.

In her divorce from Paul McCartney, Heather Mills walked away with $49 million dollars and $70,000 a year child support after a 4 year marriage. That’s $12 million a year. But let’s not forget that she started the divorce proceeding by asking for an astronomical $250 million. However, if Kris Humphries gets his $7 million, he would have out done Heather Mills on a per diem basis.

The same thing happened to a friend of mine who has money. Her ex husband threatened to drag out their divorce – despite the fact that they had a prenup. She gave him what he asked for, just to avoid a long legal battle. In my view, she has been extorted too, and she is not a celebrity. Her ex husband couldn’t even claim public humiliation.

So, why is this happening? Is this because of anger, revenge or being spouses being opportunistic? It actually does not matter, we just need to find a way to stop this.

My take? Our justice system is flawed and should be amended to prevent such extortion.

When two adults “being of sound mind and body” (or however that is worded) enter into a prenup, they should NOT be allowed to challenge it. Let’s remember that every court case is a drain on our tax dollars, too. Sure, when one spouse wants a divorce, and the other does not, probably that spouse will feel hurt and humiliation. But that applies to a lot of divorcing couples. Just because someone marries and gets divorced from a rich person does not necessarily make their hurt and humiliation any more severe or deserving of any compensation never mind astronomical compensations. You don’t hear any poor people getting sued for $7 million dollars. Why, because there is no $7 million to be had, so no law suits.

Wait a minute, does this mean those who are not rich are paying (through our tax dollars) for our judges to sit through these extortion cases?

Maybe that’s what we should do: make spouses who challenge prenups pay for the judge, the civil servants, the security for the courtroom…everything involved with their legal proceedings. Why should we subsidize this?

Some divorcing people may lose their minds – but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to lose ours.

I guess the old saying is true: money can’t buy happiness, but for some people, it sure can attract a lot of misery. Not to mention greed, revenge, hate and acts of insanity.

Martha ChanMartha Chan is the co-owner and V.P. Marketing of Divorce Marketing Group, Family Lawyer Magazine and Divorce Magazine. She is responsible for all online and offline marketing initiatives of the company, and is the Editorial Director for Family Lawyer Magazine and Divorce Magazine. She is married to Dan Couvrette and is a step mother of two sons. Connect with her on LinkedIn, Google+, Twitter and Facebook. She can be reached at (866) 803-6667 ex. 136 or

Comments are closed.