Ex-wife who blew payout told she can’t have more
A SURVEYOR whose marriage ended 16 years ago won a Supreme Court money fight with his ex-wife yesterday.
Judges ruled Graham Mills will not have to pay more than originally agreed to his ex, Maria, who asked for extra monthly payments after she lost a lump sum she had been awarded through “gross financial mismanagement”.
But Mr Mills will still have to hand his former wife £1,100 a month, unless they can agree a capital sum payment to end the obligation.
Five Supreme Court judges gave their ruling after hearing details of the dispute in London last month.
They were asked to review an appeal court decision that Mrs Mills’s payments should rise by £341 to £1,441 a month in order to cover her rent.
The couple, who are both 52 and have a grown-up son, divorced in 2002 and it was agreed that Mrs Mills should get a lump sum plus monthly payments of £1,100.
Although she could have bought a house outright with the cash, she bought and sold a number of properties described as “unwise investments” until she ended up with nothing.
Four years ago Mr Mills, from Guildford, Surrey, returned to a family court and argued that the payments should be reduced.
He said Mrs Mills had lost the lump sum through “gross financial mismanagement” and argued she was in a position to work and increase her earnings.
But Mrs Mills disagreed and asked for more.
Court of Appeal judges, who considered the case at a hearing in London in 2017, backed the ex-wife. It is their decision which has now been overturned.
The husband’s solicitor, Beverley Morris, said after yesterday’s ruling: “The decision has been hailed as a victory for Mr Mills. While it is right to say we have won in the Supreme Court, the problem remains that Mr Mills is still paying a ‘Joint Lives Maintenance Order’ with no end in sight.
Prudence
“He is paying towards her rent, when the original award gave her a housing fund. It is difficult to see it as a successful outcome when so many questions remain unanswered.
“There remains judicial uncertainty as to what is fair.”
She added: “At the heart of this case is the issue of financial prudence and financial responsibility. Mrs Mills proved an unreliable witness with her evidence being described as ‘not fully satisfactory’ but, despite that, Mr Mills has an ongoing obligation to maintain her.”
Joanne Wescott, representing beauty therapist Mrs Mills, said she was “disappointed and feeling bruised”.
She added: “The Supreme Court were asked to determine a very narrow point about whether the court was entitled to increase spousal maintenance payments to meet rent when provision for the wife’s housing needs had already been met in the original order.
“Today’s decision does not bring about the end of spousal maintenance for the wife, unattractively described as a ‘meal ticket for life,’ far from it.
“The original spousal maintenance provision of £1,100 per month from 2002 remains intact. What the Supreme Court decided was that the £341 increase provided for by the Court of Appeal was wrong because it took into account an element of her rent.”
She added: “Where Maria and Graham go from here is entirely dependent on them.”
But she suggested either could ask to capitalise the maintenance payments, meaning Mr Mills would pay his ex-wife a lump sum to buy a clean break. Ideally the couple would agree on this.