When you're reading a case about ERISA and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (i.e., zzzzzzzz), you don't typically expect to see sentences like: "the dispute in this case only concerns wives number eight and nine. None of the previous seven wives are involved in the present litigation." (!)
But I guess one of the downsides of marrying nine different people, even if done successively, is that the distribution of your retirement assets might get a little confusing. Though I'm quite positive that this is the least of your problems. :-)
Wife No. Nine gets two years of loving before her hubby dies, and nine years (and counting) of litigation with Wife No. Eight. No fun all around.
