Mills gets £24.3m from Sir Paul in divorce settlement

[iGav]

It's not fair in any way at all that she gets millions. She didn't earn it.

How much did McCartney and Mills earn during the duration of their marriage?
How many assets did they acquire during the duration of their marriage?

As far as I'm aware, Mills is entitled to roughly half of any income and assets acquired during their marriage (as would McCartney from Mills) but is unable to make a claim against earnings/assets acquired previous to that.

It's not unfair at all.

 

[RedTomato]

one question though, if she was as happy with the tettlement as she said she was, Why oh why did she slowly pour a jug of water over paul's lawyers head saying "well, justice has been done!" how is that not the markings of a crazy person.

Completely aside of anything else she's said or done, I don't think that's a sign of a crazy person. I can think of a couple of people I'd like to do it to. Maybe it's different in the USA, but that's been done a few times here.

Chumbawumba poured a bin of icy water over John Prescott's head (top uk politician) at an awards ceremony, and I remember a few other cases of water drenching at formal events.

 

[koobcamuk]

i can imagine the harm it will do to her rep in the USA where she seems to be liked A LOT more than the uk.

Understatement.

Well said too

John Prescott ... (top uk politician)

In the same sentence?!

It's not unfair at all.

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't think it's fair. Unless earning is by marrying someone with money/large income.

 

[scotthayes]

The full judgment makes interesting reading. She's lied big time.

Got to say, she seems a little delusional.

Guess Stella was right from the start.

 

[Phil A.]

The amount of vitriol in this thread is pretty unbelievable!
I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway

 

[Abstract]

How much did McCartney and Mills earn during the duration of their marriage?
How many assets did they acquire during the duration of their marriage?

As far as I'm aware, Mills is entitled to roughly half of any income and assets acquired during their marriage (as would McCartney from Mills) but is unable to make a claim against earnings/assets acquired previous to that.

It's not unfair at all.

I agree that this is 100% fair. I think she's being greedy only because I really don't believe that PM could have earned £50m by playing golf over the past 4 years.

 

[edesignuk]

The amount of vitriol in this thread is pretty unbelievable!
I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway

Have you read what the judge had to say? And what she was originally demanding? She's potty!

I think she's being greedy only because I really don't believe that PM could have earned £50m by playing golf over the past 4 years.

He apparently has extensive property and other business investments. Bringing in £50m over several years with sizeable investments (made with money earned way before Mills showed up) is perfectly doable.

 

[Ja Di ksw]

Prenup. How many times must it be said. Get a prenup!

/obligatory

 

[weckart]

But then again, he knew the risks entering the marriage. Apparently there was no pre-nup and this is the price he paid.

I wonder why Paul didn't get her to sign a pre-nup in the first place.

Prenup. How many times must it be said. Get a prenup!

Pre-nuptial agreements are an American obsession and have no legal status whatsoever in the United Kingdom. Both Paul and Heather are British citizens and are resident in the United Kingdom. Signing a random piece of paper promising to divvy up the spoils in the event of a split would not have any weight in a contested divorce case.

 

[Ja Di ksw]

*Shrug* Didn't know they carried no weight over there. I still stick by my statement for my American friends then.

Despite it just being an "American obsession"

 

[iBlue]

Pre-nuptial agreements are an American obsession and have no legal status whatsoever in the United Kingdom. Both Paul and Heather are British citizens and are resident in the United Kingdom. Signing a random piece of paper promising to divvy up the spoils in the event of a split would not have any weight in a contested divorce case.

they may not carry as much weight over here but I know for a fact that people use them and they have their validity and place. it's better than nothing.

 

[iGav]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't think it's fair. Unless earning is by marrying someone with money/large income.

It's primarily there to protect a spouse (man or woman) that may well have sacrificed their own career, though not exclusively, to contribute to married life in ways other than monetary.

Indeed, this was recognised in the following case, MacFarlane v MacFarlane, which presumably established that the contributions from a spouse who looks after home and family is now taken into account during a divorce.

Whilst you may think it's unfair, it'd would be unarguably more unfair to disregard such contributions to the marriage and subsequent family unit.

they may not carry as much weight over here but I know for a fact that people use them and they have their validity and place.

Whilst they're not legally binding, they can be evidently influential in establishing and assisting in a court deciding upon the original intentions of both parties prior to marriage.

See Crossley v Crossley for example.

 

[koobcamuk]

Whilst you may think it's unfair, it'd would be unarguably more unfair to disregard such contributions to the marriage and subsequent family unit.

Maybe, but she wouldn't have that much money if it weren't for him. She was a nobody before marrying him. I'm pulling out of this one now. She annoys me, she doesn't deserve the money, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would agree that way around....

When (if) I get married, I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all. Unless we were in business together, I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money

 

[iGav]

When (if) I get married, I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all.... I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money

My I give you a scenario.

You meet someone, she has a better career and is better paid than you. Substantially so.

However she soon falls pregnant. You decide to marry after the baby is born as well as purchasing your first house.

It is decided that after the birth, because her career is more financially advantageous, you both agree that you should stay at home and bring up baby, because you will both be better off.

You buy a house.

Because you're now married, the house you purchase is placed in joint names.

However because you are the house husband, bringing up baby with no income of your own. The mortgage and running costs are paid for entirely by your partner.

Fiscally, you contribute nothing because you're not earning. Instead you contribute to the family unit by bringing up baby, and running the home, (cleaning, cooking, shopping etc).

3 years later, baby is ready to attend nursery and you can now resume your career.

However, because of marital difficulties your wife says she wishes to divorce you.

You have contributed nothing to either acquiring, running or maintaining the property.

However, legally, your name is on the deeds and you own half the property.

Do you think you should be entitled to half of the property?
Do you think you should be financially compensated for sacrificing your career for the benefit of your family and your wife? Money that she was only able to earn because you were willing to make that sacrifice?

 

[edesignuk]

While all that is very true iGav, that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

 

[Markleshark]

Interesting Article from the BBC: How to spend £35,000 a year on a child .

I think what she needs to do is maybe step down of the high horse and like like a normal human being for a while.

 

[koobcamuk]

reasonable scenario

While all that is very true iGav, that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

Agreed. This case is nothing like iGav's reasonable scenario.

I think what she needs to do is maybe step down of the high horse and like like a normal human being for a while.

Absolutely. She loves the life of celebrity (whatever that is) and doesn't want to be a 'normal' person again. She's into the media spotlight so much so that she thinks it shines out of her a$$.

 

[mondesi43]

My I give you a scenario.

You meet someone, she has a better career and is better paid than you. Substantially so.

However she soon falls pregnant. You decide to marry after the baby is born as well as purchasing your first house.

It is decided that after the birth, because her career is more financially advantageous, you both agree that you should stay at home and bring up baby, because you will both be better off.

You buy a house.

Because you're now married, the house you purchase is placed in joint names.

However because you are the house husband, bringing up baby with no income of your own. The mortgage and running costs are paid for entirely by your partner.

Fiscally, you contribute nothing because you're not earning. Instead you contribute to the family unit by bringing up baby, and running the home, (cleaning, cooking, shopping etc).

3 years later, baby is ready to attend nursery and you can now resume your career.

However, because of marital difficulties your wife says she wishes to divorce you.

You have contributed nothing to either acquiring, running or maintaining the property.

However, legally, your name is on the deeds and you own half the property.

Do you think you should be entitled to half of the property?
Do you think you should be financially compensated for sacrificing your career for the benefit of your family and your wife? Money that she was only able to earn because you were willing to make that sacrifice?

K-Fed and Ms. Spears????

 

[iGav]

that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

Not really.

koobcamuk stated;

Maybe, but she wouldn't have that much money if it weren't for him.

Indeed, in my scenario koobcamuk wouldn't either if it weren't for his wife.

Indeed, like Ms Mills he would've been a passive partner, not only with regards to his contributions financially (or lack thereof) towards the marriage and the family unit, but also the acquisition of any assets.

But my scenario is a valid and comparable one. Strikingly so given the following statement that;

I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all.... I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money

So I presume the answer to my questions would be a no on both accounts then?

If that is indeed the case, I can completely understand your utter consternation at the Mills settlement.

 

[koobcamuk]

So I presume the answer to my questions would be a no on both accounts then?

Yes, my answer would be no to both accounts.

I wouldn't marry after producing a child - I would either marry before or not at all. As your situation would never apply to me, I will most definitely say that yes, I would not be entitled to half of a house that, whilst signed in both names, is not actually mine because I didn't pay for it.

I wholeheartedly think she doesn't deserve 24 million pounds, but then I am not a high court judge, so what do I know?

In a few years, she's managed to gain £24 million from just signing a bit of paper. She didn't give up a job that brought in big money at all. Even £1M would have been a lot more money than she was earning over the course of those marriage years.

 

[edesignuk]

Not really.

Yes really!

Fine, she may have lost out on some earnings of her own. I wouldn't for a moment argue that she deserved nothing. She's the mother of his child, after all.

That said though she has hardly been the backbone of their family, propping him up when times were hard allowing him to make a success of himself. Paul's success and wealth was already well established before they wed.

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC. More than fair as I can't imagine she on her own for those years would have earned anywhere near that herself. Likewise I highly doubt she had any tangible impact on his earnings, or his ability/time to make money.

No, she wanted £125m, and so, she is a greedy bitch and deserves all the bad PR she gets.

 

[koobcamuk]

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC. More than fair as I can't imagine she on her own for those years would have earned anywhere near that herself. Likewise I highly doubt she had any tangible impact on his earnings, or his ability/time to make money.

No, she wanted £125m, and so, she is a greedy bitch and deserves all the bad PR she gets.

Quoted because it's what I should have said.

 

[Peace]

After reading this thread all I can do is quote the Judge.

"The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".

Commenting on that claims, Ms Mills said it was because her accountant "hadn't ticked the tax return box".

Up until this I had no real opinion on the subject. But to be known as a charitable person and not give any money to charity lends me to believe Sir Paul was wise to get out while he could.

 

[silbeej]

Ah, the truth comes out. Some women marry for love, others marry for what they think is love, but it really is just for the money. Hope i don't end up with the latter of the two.

 

[macgruder]

I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway

I've always wondered why people suggest that John more talented. In terms of musicianship Paul was outstanding, and the guy who wrote most of Sergeant Pepper's and Let It Be can't be all bad They were both geniuses