Mills' $250 Million Claim Was "Exorbitant"

Judge's Full Ruling Is Released In Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Settlement

(AP)  Heather Mills was a less than candid court witness whose $250 million divorce claim was exorbitant, a judge said in his ruling on her divorce from Paul McCartney.

The judgment by Hugh Bennett was released Tuesday, after a court rejected Mills' attempt to block publication.

On Monday, Bennett awarded Mills a $48.6 million divorce settlement after her four-year marriage to the former Beatle. Mills had sought almost $250 million, while McCartney had offered $31.6 million, including Mills' own assets.

---

Photos: Splits

---

In his ruling, the judge said Mills' claim "is and was unreasonable, indeed exorbitant."

He also said Mills' evidence was "not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness."

---

Read: The Judgment (.pdf)

---

McCartney's lawyers didn't object to publication, but Mills claimed details in the ruling could compromise the security of her 4-year-old daughter Beatrice.

"Miss Mills believes her daughter will be put in real danger. It is most disturbing," said lawyer David Rosen, who represented Mills in court. She did not attend the hearing.

McCartney didn't comment after Monday's three-hour private hearing, but Mills, 40, emerged for an impromptu news conference on the courthouse steps - railing against McCartney's lawyer, Fiona Shackleton.

Shackleton, who represented Prince Charles in his divorce from Princess Diana, emerged from court Monday with a wet head, reportedly from a glass of water that Mills had dumped on her. Mills told reporters Shackleton had been "baptized in court." McCartney's representatives declined to comment.

"She has called me many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair," said Mills, whose own legal team, in an ironic twist, was led by Princess Diana's divorce lawyer until she fired them in November.

Mills walked away from court with a settlement worth about $34,000 for every day of her marriage to the 65-year-old McCartney. But it was only a fifth of what she had sought and a fraction of McCartney's $800 million fortune.

Mills declared that she was "very, very, very pleased."

"All of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between 20 and 30 million" pounds, a visibly agitated Mills said Monday. "Paul was offering a lot less than that. ... So we're very, very, very pleased."

The settlement included a lump sum of $33 million, plus the assets Mills currently holds worth $15.6 million.

Some legal experts were surprised the former model did not get more.

"In the scheme of things, it's quite surprisingly low," said Patricia Hollings, a divorce specialist with London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent. "It is only offering her about 6 percent of his assets. In terms of high-wealth cases it's very low."

McCartney also was ordered to pay $70,000 a year for Beatrice, and to pay for her nanny and school fees.

Mills said that was a paltry amount. "She's obviously meant to travel B class while her father travels A class," she said.

The settlement doesn't rank with the most expensive celebrity divorces. Basketball star Michael Jordan and singer-songwriter Neil Diamond both had to pay out about $150 million to settle their divorces, according to Forbes magazine.

British divorce settlements are generally lower than those in the U.S. But Mills' settlement is only about half of the biggest contested divorce settlement in British history - the 48 million pounds (about $90 million at the time) that insurance tycoon John Charman was ordered to pay his ex-wife in 2006.

Mills and McCartney went to court last month to decide on her share of his fortune, which had been estimated at as much as $1.6 billion. However, the judge found that McCartney's total worth was about $800 million.

Now that the case is over, Mills implored the media to just let it be.

"And I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every single day and that is why I've come out, to give it closure," she said.

[keithle1]

You don''t mess with a Beatle like that, h o. I have issued a fatwa on Mills.

[dylanxxv]

What a piece of trash...

[likeitis5050]

You know, I understand a system that wants to make sure an ex spouse receives fair compensation for the wealth brought into a shared lifestyle during a union...I do. God knows most wouldn''t do right by each other without laws, but I don''t understand claiming abuse on the one hand and then holding out for clearly more than one helped create during the time spent together. If abuse is truly present in a union...the person wanting out wants out regardless...ask Tina Turner. SHE WAS ABUSED. She walked away with nothing but her name and she WAS THE MONEY MAKER...that is proof enough that the union was abusive. Heather sought to exploit the system and Paul. The child was never the hold up...it was Heather and I don''t see how she can claim to have increased his wealth by $250 million in 4 years. She needs to go away now...promise...no one will come looking for her.

[briansgirl2]

Well, when I divorced, I had to pay my ex-husband support payments, and I was happy to do so. All through our marriage, he took very good care of me and our son. When we divorced, he was partially disabled, and not able to hold a regular job. I was more than happy to support him until his death. He was my friend, and we still cared very much for each other (just not in love any more), and our son. No, I was not "rich", just blessed to have a great job that paid well.

[ranger1948]

I think Mills shoud be paying Sir Paul. I am also sure the daughter will be taken well care of by Sir Paul. He has always been a gentleman. Where would Mills be today uif she hadn''t married him ? No one had heard of her before the marriage.

[ranger1948]

That money grubbig *** should have to pay Sor Paul. Where would she be today if she hadn''t married him ? No one had heard of her until Sir Paulmarried her. I am convinced Sir Paul will take care of his daughter. He has always been a gentleman.

[keithle1]

I never will understand ex-wives of rich men squealing, crying & jumping up & down to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed when they were still married to their sugar daddy.

Child support, yes. But paying ex-wives exorbitant amounts of alimony is beyond me.

You lose the Rolls, the mansion, the private jet, the endless shopping sprees/spa trips, expensive clothes & jewelry, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, when you get divorced, bee-yotch. Unless, of course, you have that kind of money in your own private bank account.

[godofredo29]

Linda McCartney is surely rolling over in her grave.

[jeannec3]

I''m MORE then sure that the child will be in Paul''s Will. That child will be one of the riches women in the world when she grows up. And on her visitation days to her dad''s ( Paul''s ) house,that child will NEVER want for anything. She''ll have all she wants and more !!!! Now on the other hand,who knows what Mill''s will spend her money on. You can get a big hint by her saying the child won''t ride first class in a plane on the amount Paul is to pay child support on !!! Is Mill''s going to put the child in second class while SHE rides first class !? Goes to show you why she had the child. To get more money by way of child support maybe !? She cries around about how she got screwed out of money for her and the child but then on the other hand talks about how she''s going to give to charities. Is that so people can feel guilty for taking food out of her and her child''s mouth !? SHE IS NUTS !!!!

[enriquecaliente]

"McCartney also was ordered to pay $70,000 a year for Beatrice, and to pay for her nanny and school fees. Mills said that was a paltry amount. "She''s obviously meant to travel B class while her father travels A class," she said."

That statement alone shows how much of a money grubbing GOLD DIGGER THIS BIT@H IS. Can''t Mommy use some of her money on the child.?