Compared with Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian is a paragon of stability and longevity when it comes to marriage.
The media is currently awash with large-font headlines broadcasting the 72 days that elapsed prior to Kardashian filing for divorce from Kris Humphries, her basketball-playing husband.
That might seem just a bit truncated of a period to give marriage a serious go, but consider Spears’ marriage of a few years back: It lasted 58 hours.
Aside from the pure fluff and fodder that might come immediately to mind for many people regarding the Kardashian/Humphreys vows, many legal commentators point to some serious questions and considerations relating to the couple’s split.
For instance, might vendors who supplied products for free at the wedding in return for publicity feel just a bit shorted by the claims of many that it was all a hoax? In other words, have their names and companies been commercially tarnished by association with the spectacle?
And what about the media outlets that paid the couple large amounts to gain access to and publicize the affair? Might they want some of their money back?
Some legal experts say that strong arguments can be made that the event was essentially a fraud and that unknowing participants in it might have a legal cause of action against the couple.
Says one celebrity divorce attorney: “If one of the people who gave them money came to me, I’d say, ‘You have a lawsuit.'”
Overall, a number of commentators point to what they say are multiple “interesting issues” surrounding the split, including whether a prenuptial agreement was executed and, if so, what it provided for.
One thing is clear: Where professed love, marriage, prenups and related considerations are concerned, it is unlikely that the media has seen the last of the Kardashians.
Source: USA Today, “Kim Kardashian’s divorce won’t tarnish her brand” Nov. 1, 2011