Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Paul McCartney and Heather Mills back in court

  1. #1
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,983

    Default Paul McCartney and Heather Mills back in court

    Paul McCartney and his estranged wife Heather Mills arrived in court on Thursday amid reports their acrimonious divorce battle was drawing to a close.

    British media have speculated that Mills could receive about 50 million pounds ($102 million) in a final settlement although representatives from both camps have yet to say anything official.

    Mills, 39, was bundled into the London courtroom via the back entrance and under a cover thrown over her by security guards, waiting photographers said. McCartney arrived several minutes later.

    If accurate, the reported settlement would set a new record for a contested divorce award in British courts. In August last year, insurance magnate John Charman was ordered to pay out 48 million pounds to his wife after they divorced in 2003 after 27 years of marriage.

    McCartney, 65, who has a fortune estimated at about 825 million pounds, married Mills in 2002. They have a daughter, Beatrice, who turns four later this month.

    The Sun newspaper quoted an unnamed friend of Mills as saying the couple wanted to settle the divorce before Beatrice turned four, meaning they have around three weeks to finalise details of a settlement.

    The split has been played out in the full glare of the tabloid media, which has cast Mills as a gold digger and publicity seeker -- suggestions she denies.

    Mills works for several charities, including those involved in banning landmines and preventing cruelty to animals.

    McCartney and Mills back in court over divorce - Yahoo! News

    I think it's horrible that this lying greedy cow is getting so much money for a paltry few years of marriage. She so does not deserve it.

  2. #2
    Elite Member cmmdee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Eva's Love Den
    Posts
    25,571

    Default

    That woman is the devil.

  3. #3
    Bronze Member Daisy Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On a beach in the US
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aabbcc View Post
    I think it's horrible that this lying greedy cow is getting so much money for a paltry few years of marriage. She so does not deserve it.
    Agree...but I'm waiting on karma to catch up with her.

    I must add, Paul was really stupid to marry her without a prenup. It's his own fault. He was warned and he should be happy that's all he has to give up. $50 in comparison to an estate worth $825...he's lucky. If they had divorced in California he would be giving up half his income plus partial royalties on any songs or stock ventures he had during the marriage. Hopefully he's learned his lesson. He's still one of my fav's so again I'm happy this is all he has to give up.

    SMDH...foolish old man going through a mid life crisis: a late one at that.

  4. #4
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daisy Sun View Post
    I must add, Paul was really stupid to marry her without a prenup. It's his own fault. He was warned ...
    Apparently, pre-nups are not enforceable in the UK. I think it's up to the judge. So it might not have done him any good anyway.

  5. #5
    Bronze Member Daisy Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On a beach in the US
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aabbcc View Post
    Apparently, pre-nups are not enforceable in the UK. I think it's up to the judge. So it might not have done him any good anyway.
    Get the f outta here???! You're kidding right? So how are they judging how much she should get?

    I notice the british tabloids are eating her alive. Is moral background and/or character being taken into consideration for the settlement decision?

  6. #6
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,983

    Default

    I found this online. Thought it was kind of interesting.

    The surprising situation in England results from several peculiarities of the English system.

    The first is that in England the “pot” of assets that is to be divided includes everything that the spouses own, including everything that they each had before they got married. This is in sharp contrast with most legal systems which say that whatever you have on the date of the marriage stays yours unless you take specific steps to give it to the marital partnership.

    The second difference is that the English courts place one party’s inherited assets into the marital pot.

    Third, the English courts allow fault to govern the fairness issue. This allows each party to assert that the other party was the “wrongdoer” who should be financially punished for breaking up the marriage.

    Fourth, England is one of the few places where lifetime spousal maintenance (alimony) payments are routinely ordered by the courts in favor of the spouse with fewer assets or less earning capacity.

    Fifth, England uses the concept of the ‘clean break’ as an ideal way to resolve financial matters. It is intended to mean that one ex should not have to continuously chase the other ex for money. It’s a very nice theory, but well nigh impossible to put into practice.

    Finally, to make matters even more unpredictable, prenuptial agreements are not legally binding in England, so that it is difficult or even impossible for a wealthy person to provide himself with predictable protection if he is considering marriage.

    ... "the failure of English courts to enforce pre‑nuptial agreements has long been an anachronistic peculiarity of English law and an unfortunate example of a stubborn refusal to adapt the law to new conditions."


    England Family Law, Prenuptial, Separation, International Family Law

  7. #7
    Elite Member crackho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Playin' up in muh pussah
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    I think Sir Paul was so lonely after Linda died he was willing to believe even this little gold digging bitch. Karma, Karma, Karma. If she was here I'd kick her in her good leg and laugh as she fell to the ground. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    My my, didn't we all just dip our tongues in some acid today.

  8. #8
    Bronze Member Daisy Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On a beach in the US
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aabbcc View Post
    I found this online. Thought it was kind of interesting.

    The surprising situation in England results from several peculiarities of the English system.

    The first is that in England the “pot” of assets that is to be divided includes everything that the spouses own, including everything that they each had before they got married. This is in sharp contrast with most legal systems which say that whatever you have on the date of the marriage stays yours unless you take specific steps to give it to the marital partnership.

    The second difference is that the English courts place one party’s inherited assets into the marital pot.

    Third, the English courts allow fault to govern the fairness issue. This allows each party to assert that the other party was the “wrongdoer” who should be financially punished for breaking up the marriage.

    Fourth, England is one of the few places where lifetime spousal maintenance (alimony) payments are routinely ordered by the courts in favor of the spouse with fewer assets or less earning capacity.

    Fifth, England uses the concept of the ‘clean break’ as an ideal way to resolve financial matters. It is intended to mean that one ex should not have to continuously chase the other ex for money. It’s a very nice theory, but well nigh impossible to put into practice.

    Finally, to make matters even more unpredictable, prenuptial agreements are not legally binding in England, so that it is difficult or even impossible for a wealthy person to provide himself with predictable protection if he is considering marriage.

    ... "the failure of English courts to enforce pre‑nuptial agreements has long been an anachronistic peculiarity of English law and an unfortunate example of a stubborn refusal to adapt the law to new conditions."

    England Family Law, Prenuptial, Separation, International Family Law
    Well damn!!! That explains why her name was dragged thru the mud. Not that she didn't deserve it. It's ironic, before the marriage there were building up her credibility making her out to be a noble person.

    Thanks for the info!

  9. #9
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    the dumbass has to pay the ex hooker over 100 mil. dollars! we all warned you paul about marrying her as we did Titney w/ kfed; fucking moron.

  10. #10
    Gold Member abbyroadme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Small town by NYC
    Posts
    1,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackho View Post
    I think Sir Paul was so lonely after Linda died he was willing to believe even this little gold digging bitch. Karma, Karma, Karma. If she was here I'd kick her in her good leg and laugh as she fell to the ground. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
    My thoughts exactly! I hope she takes her money and hides.
    Love ya,
    Dara

  11. #11
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    There are no prenups in the UK but there's a "genius clause" he can apparently invoke according to legal experts, which means that if one party has earned most of their money prior to their marriage through their unique talent (like being a Beatle) it's protected. Most legal experts say basically his fortune will remain untouched, at issue is just what he made in the four years of their marriage.

    Personally I can't wait until she gets the money and donates it all to charity like she promised. Hey....why's everyone laughing?

    What gets me is that this bitch said repeatedly during their marriage that she doesn't need any man's money, blah blah blah. She even BRAGGED on her website that her tax returns listed $0 income (that was supposed to show that she was so damn charitable she did all her work for free). If I were the judge I would point out that by her own admission she contributed nothing financially to the marriage and now wants an astronomical sum.

    Popbitch says that one of the sticking points is that Paul said he'd buy a house, etc. but he wants to put everything in their daughter's name for when she becomes an adult. He also wants to put money into a trust for the kid that no one, including Heather, can touch and wants nannies and security he's paying for to be from legit firms. She, being a devil bitch, disagreed with all of that and wants him to just hand the $$$ to her. Probably cause her last "bodyguard" was some dumb fitness trainer she was shtupping.

    Am I the only who noticed BTW that suddenly this bitch is not charitable in the least? Poof gone are all those charities she supposedly supported.

  12. #12
    Elite Member aabbcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Watching the sun set over Lake Superior.
    Posts
    18,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    Popbitch says that one of the sticking points is that Paul said he'd buy a house, etc. but he wants to put everything in their daughter's name for when she becomes an adult. He also wants to put money into a trust for the kid that no one, including Heather, can touch and wants nannies and security he's paying for to be from legit firms. She, being a devil bitch, disagreed with all of that and wants him to just hand the $$$ to her. Probably cause her last "bodyguard" was some dumb fitness trainer she was shtupping.
    Well, if she isn't after money, then those stipulations should be just fine, shouldn't they? Her daughter is well looked after, which is what should be important. But, of course, I don't think she fooled anyone when she said she married for love [except Paul]. She didn't make one attempt at a reconcilliation ... that I am aware of ... and she couldn't wait to run to court when Paul's settlement offer wasn't big enough.

  13. #13
    Elite Member cmmdee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Eva's Love Den
    Posts
    25,571

    Default

    Oooh, if karma DOES catch up to Heather Mills, it will NOT be very pretty.

  14. #14
    Elite Member Bijoux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Salem
    Posts
    4,866

    Default

    Hell, this bitch probably thinks she's free from bad karma because of all her damn chairty work and losing her leg in that accident.

  15. #15
    Elite Member gas_chick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    43,854

    Default

    This is the same woman who wants us to cry for her because she is not a gold digger. Yeah right. She has been offered way more than she will ever need to live her life and raise her child and has turned it down. She needs hit over the head with her fake leg.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 28th, 2007, 07:19 AM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 10th, 2007, 11:31 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 13th, 2007, 01:49 PM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: June 13th, 2006, 12:53 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 4th, 2006, 12:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •