There is much speculation on the web and in the blogs, for those who really care, that Britney Spears did not pick November 6 as the day to file for divorce from Kevin Federline by accident.
She filed two years and one month from the day of her marriage, on Oct. 6, 2004. Her prenup, according to legal theorists, evidently carried increases for Federline for every year of their marriage. And those deadlines, they say, likely had 30-day grace periods.
Hence, Nov. 6 would have been Britney's last chance to get out of paying a third year of alimony settlement to a basically talentless slacker who was a drain on her finances.
And in the end, money is probably what Spears’ divorce is all about. Since she deliberately showed off a new trim body on David Letterman’s show the other night, Spears is obviously getting ready to go back to work. If a new album and tour are on the boards, Spears obviously doesn't want to share the proceeds with Federline. It was clearly better to get out now, so that K-Fed can lay claim to only half of Spears’ earnings during what has been the most fallow period in her career.
Since celebrity cases oft provide good facts to illustrate how the legal system works, I thought I would offer my two cents. It is not uncommon for the provisions of a pre-nuptial agreement to make payments (either the amount of money or the duration of payments or both) conditioned on the length of the marriage.
In Britney's case, divorce became a consideration as a triggering or measurement date in the pre-nup approached. Britney elected to cut her economic losses.
Perhaps, her "poor" husband's motive for contesting the divorce is economic, too. If he is successful, then he may be entitled to whatever rights he would have acquired on the third anniversary of marriage.
Look for a settlement, soon.