Hotmail
Messenger
My MSN
MSN Directory
Judge calls Mills ‘explosive and volatile’
McCartney, however, described as ‘accurate and honest’ in divorce ruling
|
LONDON - Here are some of the good things about being Sir Paul McCartney: Picassos, Renoirs, choice real estate holdings, sound music investments, a long and durable first marriage, and a boatload of public good will.
Here’s the downside: the loss of his beloved first wife to breast cancer, and a disastrous second marriage to Heather Mills, who tried to use their long and unpleasant divorce case to drag the former Beatle through the mud.
Mills, who lost part of her leg when she was hit by a motorcycle, cast McCartney as an abusive, alcoholic husband who cruelly made fun of her disability. But the ruling published Tuesday by Judge Hugh Bennett made clear her angry assertions rang hollow.
In a devastating indictment of Mills, the judge called her financial claims “exorbitant” and said she had been “less than candid” in her testimony — perhaps only British restraint kept him from calling her an outright liar, for he certainly implied she twisted the truth when convenient.
By contrast, the judge praised McCartney for “consistent, accurate and honest” testimony in the ruling, made public after he rejected Mills’ attempt to block its release.
Calling Mills’ demand of $250 million from McCartney “exorbitant” in light of their four-year marriage, the judge said her claims may have been inflated because of her estranged husband’s stature.
“The wife, for her part, must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband,” he said. “I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts do not support her case.”
He said Mills, 40, had “unreasonably” expected that she would be able to live the deluxe McCartney lifestyle for the rest of her life even after she divorced the pop star.
‘Me too’ syndrome
“Although she strongly denied it, her case boils down to the syndrome of ‘me too’ or ‘if he has it, I want it too,”’ he wrote in awarding Mills $48.6 million.
|
Mills maintained she needed $6.4 million a year for herself and her daughter, Beatrice, as well as multi-million dollar properties in London and New York, and money for an office in Brighton, on England’s south coast.
Instead, the judge said Mills could get by on $1.2 million a year and one property, worth $5 million, in London.
The former model also sought millions of dollars in lost income, asserting McCartney had forced her to turn down numerous lucrative business opportunities. But Bennett rejected the claim, saying the former Beatle used his considerable prestige to actively promote his wife’s career, not quash it.
Mills claimed, for example, that McCartney made her turn down a $2 million offer to model bras for Marks & Spencer, the British retail chain. But the judge said there was no evidence to support the claim, which McCartney denied.
Click for related content |
McCartney said the couple jointly decided it was not a good idea for Mills to model lingerie while they were having a relationship.
Bennett also said Mills greatly hurt her market value and potential earnings by attacking McCartney during two televised interviews last fall.
“To some extent she is her own worst enemy,” he wrote. “She has an explosive and volatile character.”
“She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews,” he wrote.
| Rate this story | Low | High |
MORE FROM CELEBRITIES |
 Celebrities Section Front |
| Add Celebrities headlines to your news reader: |
Sponsored links
Resource guide