Perhaps, dear interwebs, you can help me figure this out. And let me just apologize up front if my ignorance offends anyone.
What, exactly, besides sharing a four-year-old girl and four years of marriage, entitles the ex-Mrs. Paul McCartney to $50 million dollars? I don’t understand how this rich people divorce thing works, exactly.
According to this CBS News article, the judge ruled that Paul has to provide the daughter $70K US annually. On top of that, he pays for tuition and nanny services. I understand this completely, and were I the judge, I’d probably have upped it a bit to help pay for bombproof round the clock security, given the frequency of nutjobs coming after the Beatles and their families. So the child is taken care of. CNN reported:
Mills said she was unhappy with that amount because it isn’t enough for school tuition, private security, or first-class airfare.
From what I read, she has custody of the child. Isn’t part of that her responsibility?
Then I read, “Mills had sought almost $250 million”, while Paul was offering a $30 million settlement, “including her own assets, which the court assessed at $15.6 million.” When is $15 million dollars not enough? And what kind of mental patient believes $250 million is a fair settlement for four years of marriage?
Pardon me for being blunt here, but I don’t think she worked for that money. I seem to remember it was Paul doing the world tours, writing the songs, and producing the albums, before he met this woman. It could be that he is a tyrant and a bully and a bastard to live with and be married to, but I kind of doubt it. From what I’ve read about this, it seems like the ex is coming off as a money-grubbing bitch.
What do you think?
Excuse my ignorance – I haven’t followed the story – but was there no prenup?
I’m actually OK with Paul shouldering most of the financial responsiblity for the child. I also suspect Paul himself feels the same way: he has virutally unlimited resources, so why *shouldn’t* his child have the best education money can buy? No doubt he would approach it that way if he was still married to Heather.
Damn – Heather could take this shit on Springer:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20184901,00.html
I guess there wasn’t a prenup, which is insanity, to my mind. I think if you’re a man or woman as prominent as a Beatle, or even a B-list celebrity, you need to have a prenup, sorry.
It seems like everything she says is from crazy-town. That water thing is nuts.
Paul has other children and grandchildren – to skip a prenup is to jeopardize their security IMO.
You’d think Heather would want a prenup too, to cover her own ass. Seems that judge might’ve allowed for the child but left Heather high and dry.
Linda, I’m not sure if you’re saying that the judge had the option to allow for the child but not compensate Crazy Mills or if you’re saying that $70K/yr for the child and $50M for baby mama was hardly equitable.
I actually read the court documents. She’s TOTALLY nuts. I’d have found against her just for that alone.
I’m saying that having no prenup was arguably even riskier for Heather than it was for Paul, as Heather may have wound up without a dime.
That he agreed to be without a prenup is stupid and irresponsible. That she agreed to it is stupid and nuts IMO.
Bill and I have done a lot for one another’s families since we’ve been together, but I have never demanded that he turn over two houses that I got him to purchase for my sisters. That alone makes me a little more apt to view her as a money grubber than the woman wronged.
My question is: why is she entitled to such a ridiculous sum since she didn’t work for a dime of it? Money to care for the child is definitely required, as is security and ONE home to raise the child in, and anything beyond that is just pure greed.
Yeah, I don’t understand how he’s suddenly responsible for paying her extended family’s bills as well.
Here’s what I’d do if I were Sir Paul: Write a song called “Fuck you, Heather Mills,” and use the royalties to pay for her ridiculous settlement.
Agreed about prenups…anyone with any assets (or debts), children, or promises to keep that predate the marriage needs one. They protect BOTH parties.
She? Is a money-grubbing nutjob. “All the charities I plan to support.” FEH. I don’t support charities by extorting people, do you?