Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

heather mills


far

Recommended Posts

I think a system where both parties are financially assessed before they tie the knot could be benficial. If a guy has made his millions whilst being married to a woman they she should be entitled to half as she will have had her own responsibilities during their marriage!! ie If they were both worth nothing when they met then one of them persues a career and makes a million then the partners should get £500k.

 

If the bloke was wealthy previously then they should go back to the same % difference should they split. In this case, Heather Mills would have got very little. ie He's worth 1 million and she's worth 10k. Then he should at least keep his £990k. What they have then aquired as a married couple should then be divided down the middle etc....;)

 

Seperate provisions should be made for the children.

 

H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So if I put her in a room with 30 other kids you would be able to pick her out? I know I wouldnt and nor would most of the general public

 

And even in first class there are members of the general public, it doesnt mean she has exclusivity

 

I'm sure because of who he is they have managed to protect her identity thus far - now Heather Mills is just Heather Mills I'm sure it's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this was always going to be messy and Heather was always going to come out looking like a money grabber even though it would have been her legal team that would have been pushing for the larger settlement, I dont feel sorry for either party, divorce is a sad business and there are no winners especially when children are involved, the sum of money she has received is huge but in respect of Pauls wealth it is not unusual

 

I got divorced a few years ago and I was the major bread winner, we had no savings as such, I found out my wife was seeing someone else and I went mad of course, but SHE divorced me on grounds of unreconcilable differences, I lost the house, the car and a very large sum of money that I have to go and borrow from a bank, I still wonder about the legal system to this day, I do not see Paul having to worry about putting his life back together........... messy agreed, end of the world for either of them .. of course not :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this was always going to be messy and Heather was always going to come out looking like a money grabber even though it would have been her legal team that would have been pushing for the larger settlement, I dont feel sorry for either party, divorce is a sad business and there are no winners especially when children are involved, the sum of money she has received is huge but in respect of Pauls wealth it is not unusual

 

I got divorced a few years ago and I was the major bread winner, we had no savings as such, I found out my wife was seeing someone else and I went mad of course, but SHE divorced me on grounds of unreconcilable differences, I lost the house, the car and a very large sum of money that I have to go and borrow from a bank, I still wonder about the legal system to this day, I do not see Paul having to worry about putting his life back together........... messy agreed, end of the world for either of them .. of course not :)

 

Sorry to hear that, life can be a b*tch can't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read through the judgement released by LJ Bennett, ....It does seem that Heather Mills BS'd about alot of her property and money, and could not produce any factual evidence to support the fact that she had lost anything through her marriage to Sir Paul, which is why it was almost impossible for Bennett to say exactly how much she was entitled too.

 

She should not have sacked her solicitors. Having read what Wallicechick has read, the following bits of the judgement stand out to me:

 

 

 

15.The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.

 

16.But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.

 

I.e.

 

33.The wife accepted that had she had £2m to £3m in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest. But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding £2m-£3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.

 

297.I regret to say that I strongly suspect that the motives of both wife and husband in trying to introduce the conduct of each other into these financial relief proceedings has got far more to do with the impending libel trials than the instant proceedings. I accept that conduct was raised by each of the parties in their Forms E which predated the commencement of libel proceedings. But matters have moved on a long way since then.

 

The money bit:

 

322.Accordingly, I shall order that the husband will pay to the wife on or after decree nisi a lump sum of £16.5m. This then means that she will exit the marriage with property and funds of £24.3m. Thus, in my judgment, the sharing principle, on the assumption that such may arguably be applicable here, is subsumed within her needs and indeed in the total figure with which she exits the marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I suspect the media suggest they sacked her. I'd eat my hat if they actually did, imagine the money they would have earned from that.

Like you, I have yet to meet a law firm that walks away from a big payment ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he obviously liked her enough to marry her, I don't get why people are saying she doesn't deserve any money etc, it seems to me on the surface that people are just shocked by the sums of money involved but it's all relative. If he had 50p to his name and she got 25p I can't imagine everyone would be kicking off.

 

What has she done to deserve £25m, a house plus maintenance- she was married to him for four years, it's not like he was a penniless busker when she met him and she stuck by him through thick and thin for forty years as he gathered his fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you, I have yet to meet a law firm that walks away from a big payment ;)

 

I do understand the point you and Charlotte make. I just wonder if you get the odd "impossible" client, you may want to distance yourself from them :)

 

In the mean time I sit corrected. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.