For those who haven't heard of Heather Mills, she's the nasty bizzom who got her hooks into Paul Mc Cartney.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article...1309577,00.html

Hope she chokes on it.

Link didnt work... try http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/mccartney.shtml

Makes you think thought doesnt it... Hey Pete we best get our pre-numps sorted before Martial Edge takes off!

haha im taking the advice of my father - another fifteen years before I go down that route!

Well to be fair if you go against one of the beacons of cultural influence then your not going to come off lightly in the press.

That said considering his fortune and earnings for the next twenty years I think he got off lightly with 24 mill. The guy will have made double that with the recent ITUNES deal.

Thing is.....Paul 'EARNED' that money.

Yadda yadda. She really should keep her trap shut.

The woman got pretty much nowt from that marriage, relatively speaking. I'm reading the judgment as I write. From what I've heard, she gets a trashing from the judge, so whatever money she did get will be tainted with that.

Now, if she'd had a good legal team, then she probably would have got more (not much more, mind) because the right questions would have been asked and his tax affairs would have been properly probed, neither of which would have been properly done by her alone, but she couldn't help but fall out with her solicitors.

As for pre-nups ("pre-numps" sounds a bit painful there, Jason!), I'm all for them. In smaller money divorces (a lot of which I deal with), it's often the bloke trying to chip away at the woman's earnings, even where she's brought up the kids pretty much single handedly.

Unless you want to split assets and cash half and half when the divorce occurs (as it is more likely than not, and particularly after a long marriage), then consider keeping your monies obviously separate from those of your spouse! And keep me in business.

Lardy wrote:
Yadda yadda. She really should keep her trap shut.

The woman got pretty much nowt from that marriage, relatively speaking. I'm reading the judgment as I write. From what I've heard, she gets a trashing from the judge, so whatever money she did get will be tainted with that.

Now, if she'd had a good legal team, then she probably would have got more (not much more, mind) because the right questions would have been asked and his tax affairs would have been properly probed, neither of which would have been properly done by her alone, but she couldn't help but fall out with her solicitors.

As for pre-nups ("pre-numps" sounds a bit painful there, Jason!), I'm all for them. In smaller money divorces (a lot of which I deal with), it's often the bloke trying to chip away at the woman's earnings, even where she's brought up the kids pretty much single handedly.

Unless you want to split assets and cash half and half when the divorce occurs (as it is more likely than not, and particularly after a long marriage), then consider keeping your monies obviously separate from those of your spouse! And keep me in business.



Lardy, our resident Legal Eagle.
How do I divorce my wife and keep all my money?

Love is blind n all that.
Poor old Macca, everyone saw that coming but him.
What an evil narcisstic beeyotch Mills is.

Ah! The man was a fool! He shoulda listened to his daughters.

And they're discussing it in detail over at Popbitch.

Those of a more delicate disposition should probably not follow this link. It does contain swearing and the like... And after a time it will drop off the bottom of the board, so be quick...
http://www.popbitch.com/board.html

Lardy wrote:
And they're discussing it in detail over at Popbitch.

Those of a more delicate disposition should probably not follow this link. It does contain swearing and the like... And after a time it will drop off the bottom of the board, so be quick...
http://www.popbitch.com/board.html

LOL.
This was a 'coke sprayed all over monitor' moment.

Point 96:

'He gave her full credit for the idea of the acrylic finger nail which, he told me, was a brilliant idea.'

Prosthetics is that one-legged slag's answer to everything.


Cheers Lardy.
Made my day.

Really, you should all read the judgment. It is brilliant!
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment_180308.pdf

Lardy wrote:
Really, you should all read the judgment. It is brilliant!
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/judgment_180308.pdf
Cripes.
Reading through that, I wouldn't have awarded her a mouldy baked bean.
She's 'mental'.

On 17 July 2006 the husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of the wife’s unreasonable behaviour. On 13 October 2006 the wife filed an Answer denying the husband’s allegation of unreasonable behaviour and cross-praying for divorce on the grounds of the husband’s unreasonable behaviour.

Bloomin Norah!34. In March 2000 the wife bought a property in Cross Street in Brighton for about £250,000, using £200,000 paid to her as compensation for the injuries arising out of her accident in 1993. There was no need therefore for her to touch the £2m-£3m in her bank account if such existed. However in May 2001 the wife purchased in her own name 7, Western Esplanade in Hove i.e. Angel’s Rest for £750,000. On 18 May 2001 MPL Household, the husband’s company, and the wife entered into a formal legal charge whereby it lent the wife £800,000, interest free, secured on Angel’s Rest in order for the wife to be able to buy it. The wife agreed to repay the loan at £1000 per month from 1 July 2001 for a period of 25 years. The excess of £50,000 was to be used to improve the property. In September 2001 the husband advanced the wife another £150,000 to carry out refurbishments. The inevitable question was asked of the wife – why the need for such a loan and advances if she had £2m-£3m in the bank? Even allowing for some depletion in the bank balances over an 18 month period from mid 1999 to early 2001, if she was as wealthy as she made out there would have been no need for this loan or for a loan of such magnitude.