The phrase “we want prenup, we want prenup” comes to mind.
THE music industry’s main protagonist/antagonist Kanye West has suggested he might challenge his prenup agreement with Kim Kardashian, and also labelled her claims he has caused her “emotional distress” with his string of social media posts as “double hearsay”.
According to Rolling Stone, the music mogul has again firmly stated his opposition to Kardashian’s request for quicker restoration of her single status in a new court filing on Friday ahead of a final settlement on financial and custody issues in the couple’s high-profile split.
Earlier this week, Kardashian said that she believes West’s initial request for a delay filed on February 18 is bad for both parties.
She has said that the prenup agreement did not involve the mixing of the former couple’s assets, therefore Kanye’s request for more time to sort out financial matters was unnecessary. She also claimed that the Donda rapper is “putting a lot of misinformation regarding our private family matters and co-parenting on social media, which has created emotional distress.”
“I believe that the court terminating our marital status will help Kanye to accept that our marital relationship is over and to move forward on a better path which will assist us in peacefully co-parenting our children,” she wrote in a statement to the court filed last Wednesday.
A reply from the rapper’s lawyer refutes Kardashian’s allegation of “misinformation” being spread online by West as “double hearsay.”
In the filing on February 25, the lawyer wrote: “Kim claims she read something online allegedly by Kanye and characterizes the posts in her declaration as misinformation. The social media posts are not attached to the declaration. Kim needed to offer the social media posts into evidence, and show that the posts were written by Kanye.”
The filing goes on to apparently question the validity of Kanye and Kim’s prenuptial agreement.
“California premarital agreements entered on or after January 1, 2002, are presumptively invalid,” it states, referring to a new statute that requires agreements signed after 2001 go through a stricter ratification process.“ The presumption of invalidity exists until rebutted at trial or the parties ratify the agreement. We are in the early stages of the case so no ratification has occurred.”
A hearing to address the matter is set for March 2.