New York readers can't help hearing news surrounding the short-lived marriage of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries. It is interesting to note that Humphries is seeking an annulment rather than a divorce, and many readers may not know the difference between these two processes.

In certain fraudulent or otherwise problematic circumstances, couples parting ways may be eligible for an annulment. Unlike divorce, an annulment will legally nullify the marriage. This nullification process has significant consequences for how finances are treated after the couple has parted ways.

Unlike divorce settlements, in which complex calculations involving joint property, separate property and spousal support are regularly considered, the annulment process seeks to restore individuals to the financial position they were in when they entered the soon-to-be nullified union.

Practically, this means that whatever assets and debt each individual brought into the union will be restored accordingly. Under ordinary circumstances, debt and assets that were acquired during the union will be split between the parties. However, both parties could remain legally liable for the whole of certain debts, should the other party fail to pay his or her fair share.

There are obvious financial advantages to filing for an annulment rather than divorce. The process is typically speedier and could be more equitable than many divorce settlement processes. However, not everyone is a candidate for annulment.

To qualify for annulment, unions must be based on some sort of fraud or equally problematic circumstance. Additionally, most states impose time limits by which one must file for an annulment after learning about the fraudulent or problematic reality.

While annulment may offer financial advantages, it is not possible for every couple seeking to part ways. Only certain unions are eligible to be nullified.

Source: CreditCards.com, "Annulment vs. divorce: How it impacts finances," Tamara E. Holmes, Dec. 30, 2011