More Golddigger Bitch Slaps

Lainey Posted by Lainey at March 18, 2008 10:33:00 March 18, 2008 10:33:00

For those of you too busy or lazy to read through the entire judgment… more gems from the judge’s written decision on the McCartney Mills divorce. More incriminating details about Heather’s character, or lack thereof. Greedy, lying, conniving c-bomb.

Thanks again C!

You will note – for all her pontificating about her charity work… turns out she can’t produce any receipts. Does it get much lower?

Read on below:

• I have to say I cannot accept the wife’s case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999. Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings.

• The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities. In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.

• I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated.

• Furthermore, it is to be noted that, as I have said, in May 2001 the husband lent the wife £800,000 to buy Angel’s Rest. A loan of £800,000 to the wife in May 2001 does not support the concept of a gift to the wife of a property in March 2001 worth about $4m. The wife told him she had been offered a more permanent job co-hosting the Larry King Show. The husband was sceptical because the wife had received bad reviews for her interview of Paul Newman. It is a central part of her case that she helped the husband to communicate better with his children, particularly Heather. She “counselled” him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda’s death to restart touring. She says she helped him write songs. She suggested that he should have an acrylic finger nail because he had worn down his finger nail of his left hand to the point that it bled. She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours. She went on every tour; indeed, she says, he insisted on her coming.

• I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s “psychologist”, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief. I reject her evidence that she, vis-à-vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage. I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence. Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too” or “if he has it, I want it too”. I shall say more about this when I consider what are the wife’s needs.

I am satisfied that the wife has expected, and unreasonably, that such a lifestyle would not only continue but was her entitlement.
She did not moderate her spending after separation. I entirely accept that when a marriage breaks down, the maelstrom of a broken relationship may well envelop both spouses and make it very difficult for them to re-order their lives, particularly financial. But I have no doubt that in the wife’s mindset, there was an element that she was going to spend (in the 15 month period) in order thereby to hope to prove that a budget in excess of £3m p.a. put forward in her Form E in September 2006 was justifiable.

Previous Article Next Article