Judge to Settle McCartney Divorce

LONDON — Paul McCartney and Heather Mills' weeklong divorce hearing ended Monday without a deal, and a judge will now impose a settlement on the warring couple.

As legal teams left court, McCartney's lawyer Nicholas Mostyn told reporters that judge Hugh Bennett had reserved his ruling. The judge will now spend several weeks working out a settlement.

Mills and McCartney separated in 2006 after four years of marriage. They went to court to decide on Mills' share of the former Beatle's fortune, which is estimated at as much as $1.6 billion.

Mills, 40, smiled as she left London's Royal Courts of Justice with her entourage. McCartney, 65, did not attend, although he was in court to face his estranged wife every day last week.

Media reports have suggested McCartney offered his wife around S$50 million and that she was seeking at least double that amount.

Few details have emerged from Court 34 since the hearing began Feb. 11. Unlike most British court cases, divorce proceedings are heard in private, and the courtroom is closed to journalists and the public.

The terms of a settlement will not become public unless it is challenged in the Court of Appeal, or one of the parties chooses to reveal details.

Mills is a former model whose left leg was amputated below the knee after a motorcycle accident in 1993. She became active in campaigning against land mines and in favor of animal welfare.

The couple married in June 2002 _ four years after the death of McCartney's first wife, Linda _ and their daughter Beatrice was born in October the following year. They announced their separation in 2006, and McCartney filed for divorce alleging "unreasonable behavior" by his wife.

Comments

[LanguagePolice]

"The couple married in June 2002 _ four years after the death of McCartney's first wife, Linda _ and their daughter Beatrice"

What is this with the underscores instead of dashes?

HuffPo's headline is also basically wrong. There is "no payout YET". The story says that the judge will decide whether or not there's a payout. There may still be one.

[Camarosc35]

It is entertainment news. Anyway, I wish the judge gives Mills as little as possible.

[nyboomer]

How is this of any import to anyone other than the principals?

[kellygrrrl]

I bet it's real important to all the attorneys and their trustees and beneficiaries. I cannot imagine how many pounds those barristers have raked in

[cindyw]

Not important, but mildly interesting. This is the entertainment section after all. I read it to temporarily distract myself from political angst.

[Chrisanne]

Important because it sets precedent-­-especiall­y if the judge's decision is appealed by either party, as two previous high-stakes divorce cases were in 2006. The eventual ruling in this case can be cited in the future divorce proceedings of other couples where a large financial settlement is in dispute.

[fahrenheit451]

It isn't. It is what it is: a distraction from the grim reality of our dull, dull lives.