« BACK TO TMZ TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Kris Humphries

The Annulment Documents

12/1/2011 2:34 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

1201-document-humphries-ex
TMZ has just obtained the annulment documents Kris Humphries filed in response to Kim Kardashian's divorce petition.

As you can see, Kris is seeking an annulment based on fraud.

Take a look.

For more sports stories, check out tmzsports.com!
255 COMMENTS

No Avatar
61.

BB not bb    

@URSilly -- I didn't even read your whole post. It is just a lot more namecalling. It is pretty boring. Where are the facts? The facts that I have seen show Kris as abusive and Kim as being hurt by it. Isn't that enough reason to leave?

Do you think she should stay in an abusive relaionship, just because she was desperate to get married and ignored the warning signs of his being a no good creep?


He is only belittling her and shoving her now. What happens when it escalates to him actually beating her up, spending all her money, and sending her to a mental ward? Will it be okay with you if she stands up to him then?


Is this the new America, where a woman is abused by her husband and the rest of the village joins in to stone her? It sounds more like Islamic fundamentalism than the USA.


I am sick of this abuse in the comments. Is that okay with you? I don't like seeing women be abused, seeing the innocent slandered, or seeing victims get blamed. It seems like other people here are on an evil power trip of putting down the new outcast.

1020 days ago
62.

HumanNature    

I'M NOT IN ANYWAY A KIM K./KRIS HUMPHREY FAN!!!


BUT, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL, "DUMB AS A BASKETBALL" KRIS HUMPHREY WILL EVER RECEIVE AN ANNULMENT BASED ON FRAUD!!!


WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THIS "DUMB ASS JOKE OF A BABY BOY" SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!!


"DUMB BOY" KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF INTO WHEN HE MARRIED KIM K.!!!!


WAS HE EXPECTING HER TO QUIT HER "REALITY SHOW" FOR HIM TO LIVE A NORMAL LIFE ON THAT "SHORT-LIFE" BASKETBALL SALARY IN MINNESOTA????


BOTH OF THEM SAT WITH LAWYERS TO SIGN A IRON CLAD PRENUP BEFORE THEY GOT MARRIED!!!


THEY BOTH DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO......"FREE WILL"!!!


HEY "DUMMY" KRIS, YOU WANT OUT OF THE MARRIAGE!!!


GROW UP, BE A MAN AND GET A "DIVORCE"!!!


MESSAGE FOR KIM AND KRIS:


NEXT TIME, GET TO KNOW THE PERSON FIRST (TAKE YOUR OWN SWEET TIME), MAKE SURE THE PERSON HAVE YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART, LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE, LISTEN/PAY ATTENTION, STOP BEING ARROGANT, STUPID, SELFISH AND CHILDISH AND MOST IMPORTANT, STAY AWAY FROM THE "WHORES AND DUMMIES"!!!


Annulment (Nullity Of Marriage) In California
General Information Re Nullity (Annulment) Of Marriage Or Domestic Partnership In California


Petitioning for a judgment of nullity (rather than marriage dissolution) is appropriate where the validity of the marriage is in doubt.


Marital dissolution (divorce) and nullity of a marriage are premised on completely different assumptions:


A dissolution action is maintained to terminate a valid marriage on grounds arising after the marriage (Ca Fam § 2310);
A nullity proceeding is maintained on the theory that, for reasons existing at the time of the marriage, no valid marriage ever occurred (i.e., the marriage, from its inception, is either void or voidable; Ca Fam § 2200 et seq.). In other words, whereas a dissolution action seeks to terminate marital status, a nullity action seeks to inquire whether any such status ever existed.


A marriage may be invalid from its inception either because of irregularities in statutory formalization procedures (ordinarily, license, solemnization and authentication; (Ca Fam § 306) or because of other legal impediments that, notwithstanding proper formalization, render the marriage void or voidable (incestuous, bigamous, induced by fraud or force, party under age of consent, etc.; (Ca Fam §§ 2200, 2201, 2210).


General Requirements For A Valid Marriage In California


"Marriage" under California law is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." [Ca Fam § 300] But the parties' consent does not alone constitute a marriage. To validate the marriage, the consent must be followed by issuance of a license (Ca Fam § 350 et seq.), solemnization (Ca Fam § 400 et seq.) and authentication (Ca Fam §§ 422-425); and the "certificate of registry of marriage shall be returned" (Ca Fam §§ 359 & 360...... (emphasis added)). [Ca Fam §§ 300, 306]


California has abolished the concept of "common law marriage." A valid marriage cannot be created in California solely by the parties' consent or mere cohabitation. [Ca Fam § 300]


"Void" vs. "Voidable" Marriages And Domestic Partnerships


A void marriage or domestic partnership (Ca Fam §§ 2200-2201) is invalid and a nullity from its inception. It never legally existed.


A voidable marriage or domestic partnership (Ca Fam § 2210) is valid for all civil purposes between the parties and against the world until adjudged a nullity; i.e., the marriage or domestic partnership is invalidated only from the time it is so declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, with the passage of time, a voidable marriage or domestic partnership may, for all practical purposes, become valid (nonvoidable) because a proceeding to annul a voidable marriage/domestic partnership must be commenced within statutorily-prescribed time limits. [Ca Fam § 2211] Once the applicable statutory period expires, a judicial termination of marital/domestic partnership status and adjudication of the bundle of rights and responsibilities incident thereto must proceed by an ordinary dissolution.


Basis For Judicial Determination Of Nullity Where Marriage Or Domestic Partnership Is "Void"


An alleged marriage or domestic partnership may be adjudged a nullity as "void" pursuant to Ca Fam §§ 2200 or 2201 or if otherwise invalid from its inception as follows:


Incest: A marriage or domestic partnership between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, brothers and sisters (of the half or whole blood), or uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews is incestuous and void from the beginning, "whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate." [Ca Fam § 2200]


Bigamy: A subsequent marriage or domestic partnership is illegal and void from the beginning if either party has a spouse or domestic partner still living unless the former marriage/domestic partnership was dissolved or adjudged a nullity before the date of the subsequent marriage/domestic partnership. [Ca Fam § 2201(a)(1)]


Exception: A subsequent marriage or domestic partnership when a party has a spouse or domestic partner still living is only voidable (valid until adjudged a nullity pursuant to § 2210(b)) where, at the time of the subsequent marriage or domestic partnership, the former spouse/domestic partner (a) has been absent, and not known to be living for five successive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage/domestic partnership, or (b) "generally reputed" or believed to be dead. [Ca Fam § 2201(a)(2) & (b)]


Marriage/Domestic Partnership Not Lawfully Contracted: Sections 2200 and 2201 (above) do not state the exclusive grounds for invalidating a marriage or domestic partnership as "void." A marriage or domestic partnership ostensibly contracted in accordance with California law is also invalid from its inception and thus void if the parties failed to comply with the Ca Fam §§ 300 and 306 requirements for a valid marriage or the Ca Fam § 297 requirements for a valid domestic partnership).


Basis For Nullity Where Marriage Or Domestic Partnership Is "Voidable"


Minority Of A Party: The party who commences the nullity proceeding (or on whose behalf it is commenced) was under the age of lawful consent (under age 18) and did not obtain the requisite parental/court consent unless, after attaining age 18, the party "freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife." [Ca Fam § 2210(a)]


Prior Existing Marriage Or Domestic Partnership: Either party was legally married to another or a member of another domestic partnership, but the subsequent marriage or domestic partnership is not illegal and void because within the § 2210(b)(1) & (3) "voidability" rule (former spouse/domestic partner absent for five years and not known to be living or generally reputed to be dead. [Ca Fam § 2210(b)]


Unsound Mind: Either party was of "unsound mind" (unable to understand the subject matter of the marriage/domestic partnership contract and obligations incident thereto) unless, "after coming to reason," he or she "freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife." [Ca Fam § 2210(c)]


Force: Either party's consent to the marriage or domestic partnership was obtained by "force," unless the coerced party thereafter "freely cohabited with the other" as husband and wife. [Ca Fam § 2210(e)]


Physical Incapacity: Either party was "physically incapable" of entering into the marriage state (unable to engage in normal copulation) and such incapacity continues and appears to be "incurable." [Ca Fam § 2210(f)]


Fraud: Either party's consent to the marriage or domestic partnership was obtained by "fraud," unless the defrauded party thereafter, and with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, "freely cohabited with the other" as husband and wife. [Ca Fam § 2210(d)]


The type of "fraud" sufficient to support a judgment of nullity must go to the very essence of the marital [or domestic partnership] relation. Thus, fraud or deceit sufficient to avoid an ordinary contract will not necessarily warrant a judgment of nullity. The alleged misrepresentation or concealment must have been "vital to the relationship," directly affecting the purpose of the deceived party in consenting to the marriage/domestic partnership.


The following are some examples of the kinds of fraud which would warrant a nullity judgment:


As between spouses, concealment of sterility, of existing pregnancy, or of an intent not to terminate a sexual relationship with a "significant other" goes to the "very essence" of the marriage relationship and thus is sufficient ground for a judgment of nullity.
As between married persons, a concealed intent not to live with the other spouse, not to engage in sexual relations with the other spouse, or not to have children despite a promise to the contrary supports a judgment of nullity on the ground of fraud.
Wife, who was induced to marry by Husband's false representations he was an honest, law-abiding, respectable and honorable person and that he had a child who was well provided for, was entitled to a judgment of nullity on the ground of fraud where Husband had in fact been convicted of grand theft, was a parole violator and a fugitive from justice, and was guilty of failure to support his children from a prior marriage.
A judgment of nullity based on fraud is also warranted where one party's motive in entering the marriage was solely to obtain a green card (to acquire U.S. residency status) and he or she never intended to engage in sexual relations with the other or to meet marital duties.


On the other hand, "the concealment of incontinence, temper, idleness, extravagance, coldness or fortune inadequate to representations cannot be the basis for an annulment." The following are some examples of the kinds of fraud which would NOT warrant a nullity judgment:


A party's false representation that he or she owned a particular business or was a "person of means"
Deceit about one's chastity or moral character is not "vital" to the marital relationship and thus will not justify a judgment of nullity on the basis of fraud.
Nor is there sufficient fraud to annul a marriage simply because a party concealed a severe drinking problem (or, presumably, drug addiction), refused to seek employment after contracting the marriage (despite assurances before marriage to the contrary), proved to be a "disappointing" sexual partner, and/or turned from a "polite" and "nice" person before marriage to a "dirty," "unattractive" and disrespectful person after the marriage. A finding of § 2210(d) fraud cannot rest solely on the fact a spouse "turned from a prince into a frog."


Valid vs. Invalid Marriage - Substantive & Procedural Differences


Statute of limitations: A nullity cause of action based on a voidable marriage or domestic partnership (minority, fraud, force, etc.) is subject to a statute of limitations. There is, of course, no "statute of limitations" on the commencement of a marriage or domestic partnership dissolution action.


Minority Of A Party: A petition for nullity of a voidable marriage/domestic partnership based on minority may be brought by:


The party who was under the age of consent within four years after reaching the age of consent (Ca Fam § 2211(a)(1)); or
A parent, guardian, conservator or other person having charge of the minor at any time before the married minor reaches the age of consent (Ca Fam § 2211(a)(2)).


Prior Existing Marriage: A petition to annul a voidable marriage or domestic partnership based on a prior existing marriage or domestic partnership (former spouse/domestic partner absent for five years and not known to be living or generally reputed to be dead, may be brought by:


Either party during the life of the other (Ca Fam § 2211(b)(1)); or
The former spouse/domestic partner (Ca Fam § 2211(b)(2)).


Unsound Mind: A nullity petition alleging voidability on the basis of a party's "unsound mind" may be brought by the "injured party," or by a relative or conservator of the party of unsound mind, at any time before the death of either party. [Ca Fam § 2211(c)]


Fraud: A petition seeking a judgment of nullity on the ground of fraud may be brought only by the party whose consent was obtained by fraud and within four years after discovery of the facts constituting the fraud. [Ca Fam § 2211(d)]


Force: An action to annul a voidable marriage or domestic partnership on the ground of force may be brought only by the party whose consent was obtained by force and within four years after the marriage/domestic partnership. [Ca Fam § 2211(e)]


Physical Incapacity: A nullity action based on physical incapacity may be brought only by the "injured party" and within four years after the marriage/domestic partnership. [Ca Fam § 2211(f)]


Rights Of The Parties On Termination Of Invalid Marriage


Parties to an "invalid" marriage or domestic partnership generally do not have the rights and obligations granted to and imposed upon spouses or domestic partners under the Family Code.


But there is an important exception: A party to an invalid marriage or domestic partnership who has "putative" spouse or domestic partner status may be entitled to property, support and attorney fees/costs rights similar to those attaching upon the dissolution of a valid marriage or domestic partnership. [Ca Fam §§ 2251, 2254, 2255] A party to a void or voidable (or other invalid) marriage has "putative spouse" status only if he or she believed in good faith the marriage was valid. [Ca Fam § 2251]


A party's "good faith" belief in the validity of the marriage is not tested by whether he or she believed a "marriage" lawfully occurred under some private, secular or spiritual set of standards. A putative spouse must have had a good faith belief in the existence of a lawful California marriage (i.e., attempted compliance with statutory requirements).


Whereas unmarried "Marvin" cohabitants have no marital rights under the Family Code, putative spouse or domestic partner status gives rise to cognizable Family Code property, support and attorney fees/costs rights, as well as certain other rights that ordinarily attach only between lawfully married persons or lawfully registered domestic partners.


"Quasi Marital" Property: Property that would have been community or quasi-community property had the marriage or domestic partnership been valid is deemed "quasi-marital property" and, in a proceeding to terminate the invalid marriage/domestic partnership, must be divided between the parties as if it were community property (i.e., generally equally pursuant to Ca Fam § 2500 et seq.). [Ca Fam § 2251(a)(2)]


Support And Attorney Fees: Temporary and/or "permanent" spousal/partner support may be awarded in a nullity proceeding in favor of a putative spouse/partner "in the same manner as if the marriage [or domestic partnership] had not been void or voidable" (i.e., pursuant to Ca Fam §§ 360......0 (temporary support) and 4320 et seq. ("permanent" support)). [Ca Fam § 2254] Also, the court may award Ca Fam § 2030 et seq. need-based attorney fees and costs in favor of a party found to be "innocent of fraud or wrongdoing in inducing or entering into the marriage [or domestic partnership], and free from knowledge of the then existence of any prior marriage [or domestic partnership] or other impediment to the contracting of the marriage [or domestic partnership] for which a judgment of nullity is sought." [Ca Fam § 2255]


Survivorship Rights: Ca Fam § 2251 "quasi-marital property" rights are triggered only in a dissolution, legal separation or nullity proceeding under the Family Code. The statute does not define a surviving putative spouse's/partner's legal rights in the other party's estate at death; rather, that is a matter of probate law.


http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/annulment/nullity.html

1020 days ago
63.

Jillian    

Hey Kim, go get peed on. It's the only thing you know how to do. People are totally fed up with you and your phoney hobag mother and anything Kartrashian.

1020 days ago
64.

URSilly    

BB, you want to talk abuse? How about how the Kardashian women treat their men on TV, so abusive! How about Kim close fisting and lunging at Kris ON TV? If he had done that to her they would have filed domestic violence charges against him. Stop with your double standards BB, it is BS.

Kim is no saint and is the abusive vindictive one!

She is fake and loves to victimize and exploit others, all the while crying victim herself. She and her mother and their head games cry out what mentally ill women they really are.

Kim and her Mom, Khloe and Kourtney are the abusive ones to all of the guys on their show. Verbally, emotionally and now even physically.

Kim hit Kris on TV, that is NOT okay.

1020 days ago
65.

ITUS    

new show "I'M A KARDASHION FRAUD" watch me make money for doing nothing but exploiting others to get ahead cause my talent is lying and being fake! BOYCOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1020 days ago
66.

duccio25    

Go away, you psoriasis infested fame w****!!

1020 days ago
67.

BB not bb    

@70 -- I didn't see where she punched him but there is a thing called self defense. If someone is mentally disturbing you constantly, that is provocation. She doesn't seem like the type to just go around punching people, does she?


You can't torture someone and expect them not to lash out back. Her little fist against him is no comparison to him punching her either.

1020 days ago
68.

URSilly    

BB, keep spinning your web of lies just like the Kardashian's and their PR team try to do.

Kris did not hurt Kim, Kim lashed out at him with a closed fist, a direct punch at him on TV, because he accidentally bumped her toe, so she freaked over her silly toenail and Dr. Drew and sites have the video replay posted of her being physically abusive to Kris Humphries. Even her face and eyes show the violence, then the closed fist as she goes right at him with intent to hurt him.

You want to talk abusive? Do Kim's inventory first then! You want to talk abuse? Do Kim and Kris's inventory how they treated Kris's family so abusively and how they treat Scott and Bruce on the show abusively. You want to talk abuse, look at what Kim and her Mom are doing to Kris in headlines, now calling Kris gay? They are sick vindictive women, narcissists who will destroy someone when they cannot control or exploit the bleep out of someone, so out of their malicious need for revenge they take it to the headlines for a tabloid war.

The Kardashian women are the abusive ones! Spin it how you need to, but the evidence is out there and MANY see it. There are many forms of abuse, and the mental head games, mental abuse, verbal abuse, now Kim punching Kris?

I*****uy did that to her on TV, people would be in an uproar, she lacked impulse control and close fisted him purposely and her face when she did it, says volumes that it was not the first time she reacts like that.

Do her inventory if you are going to do his!

Otherwise BB, you are just spinning lies and floating BS with your posts.

Go watch it for yourself, GOOGLE it, CNN played it over and over the other night.

So explain it all away and keep twisting the truth, spinning lies, just like the Kardashian's and their PR team continue to do.

Kim needs to be held accountable for her own wrongdoings and abusive behavior!

1020 days ago
69.

arale norimaki    

Kim CRAPashian please go way.

You're nothing but a little lyin' ass b!tçh !

1020 days ago
70.

Kabala    

Good for him - make it as difficult as ya can, bro.

1020 days ago
71.

nuffsaid    

hahaha!!! GO TEAM HUMPHRIES!!!!!!!

1020 days ago
72.

A viewer    

Good for him. He needs to clear himself from the attention whore. He finally came to his senses.

1020 days ago
73.

URSilly    

BB, it was not nor had anything to do with self defense. Kris accidentally bumped Kim's toe and she freaked out and reacted with an abusive close fisted blow to his mid-section, he even had to put his arms up in defense and she tried to punch him around his arms by his chest. You said you did not see it, how convenient. Go watch it before you blow smoke in a comment posting giving her a free pass calling it self defense?

He accidentally bumped her toe and she freaked out about her pedicure/toenail. That is all she cared about, then she stood up and punched him on TV and her and her Mom get to choose the editing and they let that remain in, they thought that abusive reaction was okay to air on TV.

It was and is not okay for anyone to close fist punch anyone, woman or man.

PR spin it away but real is real and that was real. Her face shows she wanted to hurt him.

1020 days ago
74.

john j    

Kris,

I know your read this, take this bitch for everything she can afford to give, she will have no mercy, hire a PR person, and play the media against her, she showed her true colors, do not let her fool you... finish her

1020 days ago
75.

Bruno    

Hi, my name is Kim Kartrashian. I'm here to I traduce you to my new fragrance "Desperation". Yum, smells just like the men's restroom at the bus station!

1020 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web