Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian celebrate her 31st birthday in NYC on October 21, 2011 (Splash News)As news of the KimYe baby exploded on social media over the New Year’s weekend, one potential complication still hung in the air – what could it mean if Kim Kardashian was still married to Kris Humphries when she gives birth to her and Kanye West’s first child?
Kardashian was famous for her 2011 highly publicized wedding to Humphries, which his lawyer claims was “a fraud.” During their last court date in late November, Kardashian’s attorney, Laura Wasser claimed that, “Miss Kardashian is now handcuffed to Mr. Humphries." The couple is due back in court on February 15.
omg! spoke with California family law legal expert Marlo Van Oorschot, who points out there are very few reasons in this case to expedite a trial, but plenty of reasons to delay it. “A trial requires both parties to be present and if one or both of them are unable to attend due to unavoidable work commitments (such as Kris’) or health (such as being in the ninth month of pregnancy), trial will likely be delayed,” she explains. “There is no basis in the law to move this matter to an early trial schedule. There are no urgencies in this case, which are any different or more important than those of the public at large seeking their own divorces in the public courthouse. There are very few exceptions to allow for an early trial date and this case does not present those exceptions.”
Radar Online notes that the main point of disagreement is over Kardashian’s refusal to agree to an annulment, which she believes would confirm that her marriage indeed took place just for the cameras. Whether that’s true or not, "Kim is refusing to cave to any of Kris' demands,” a source tells Radar. “She has moved on with her life, and she won't agree to an annulment on grounds that the marriage was fraudulent because it would cause catastrophic damage to her brand."
Radar also claims that it in fact does indeed appear that Kardashian and Humphries will likely still be married when she’s scheduled to give birth in June, due to both the court’s calendar and his basketball schedule. "Kris isn't trying to drag this out, but he wants to be vindicated in court,” a source tells Radar. “Kris will see this through to the end."
Van Oorschot spoke with a credible and respected colleague of hers who said, “that it is highly likely the reason (Humphries) is seeking the annulment is because of pure personal/ego – not for any legal reason.”
However, a fact first pointed out by TMZ is that the husband of a pregnant woman is “presumed” to be the father of the unborn child, which could complicate matters. In other words, going through the hassle of having to prove that West is her baby’s daddy, could influence Kardashian’s decision to agree to an annulment.
Kanye West and Kim Kardashian on December 31, 2012 (Denise Truscello/WireImage)But Van Oorschot says that the “legal presumption” can easily be rebutted with genetic testing. “There is no significant legal issue with regards to who the legal father is in this case. While Kim can certainly and presumably will name Kanye as the father on the child’s birth certificate, she is unable to be married to the father of her child at the time of birth.”
There is another legal recourse the couple could take to expedite a resolution – hiring a retired judicial officer. Since the cost itself shouldn’t be an issue for the two high-earning stars, Van Oorschot suggests that they may be dragging things out because “one or both of them enjoy the publicity this case is bringing or are desirous of the delays inherently provided by the public court system, or both.”
An admission of annulment by Kardashian would indeed mean a confession of fraud, and Van Oorschot believes there could be financial ramifications for the reality star as a result. “I would think there could be potential ramifications with regards to the money she earned from televising her wedding and anything and everything related to the publicity of the wedding wherein she was paid,” Van Oorschot pontificates. “Because if she received money based upon that fraudulent marriage this might create the legal basis for other fraud claims against Kim and her businesses empire. As for the divorce itself, I see no legal ramifications except as to her engagement/wedding ring that Kris seeks to be returned. If there was never a marriage [legally], then Kris may be entitled to the return of the ring which is obviously extremely valuable.”
Now, we ain’t saying she a gold digger…