Think of what has happened since October 2011.
President Obama was re-elected, Twinkies nearly went extinct, Psy had America dancing "Gangham Style," and two Super Bowl champions were crowned (the New York Giants and Baltimore Ravens, respectively. Yet Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries were still married despite filing for divorce.
Like their reality show, the divorce proceedings made just as many headlines for their bickering over Kim's wedding ring, whether Kris was hoodwinked into marrying him, and how much in attorneys fees Kim was forced to spend in order to get a divorce. (Humphries insisted that the marriage be annulled.)
Nevertheless, after 18 months of legal-wrangling, the parties reached a settlement.
This post is not to suggest that litigation in divorce is unneeded or unnecessary. To the contrary, litigation serves an important purpose when two sides simply cannot agree and have a genuine dispute over how the law may apply. However, the Kardashian /Humphries story is a classic example of why only a small percentage of disputes go to trial.
The terms were not readily disclosed, but it is safe to assume that both parties had to give on some of their demands in order to reach an accord. As such, Kris probably did not get the annulment he wanted, and Kim did not get the attorney's fees she was seeking.
One last hurdle must be cleared before the divorce is finalized. Both parties must sign the stipulation to be presented to the court. It is not expected that either party will raise any last-minute issues.
Source: USA Today.com, Judge approves settlement for Kim Kardashian and Kris Humprhies, April 19, 2013