‘I won’t be my ex-wife’s cash machine for life’
Graham Mills is ready for the next battle in his divorce war, he tells Martin Daubney
For a man who has just won a Supreme Court divorce battle of global significance, Graham Mills is hardly doing cartwheels. Perhaps that’s understandable: after the latest stage of a gruelling, 16-year battle with his ex-wife, Maria – and some £63,000 in legal fees later – Mills is still chained to a maintenance settlement that he feels renders him “a cash machine for life”.
But he could be a step closer to freedom.
On Wednesday, Mills, 52, who founded and runs a surveying firm, overturned a Court of Appeal ruling that had increased his ex-wife’s maintenance payments to £1,441 a month from £1,100.
Today, as we breakfast at Waterloo station, he exudes something of the Gareth Southgate spirit. “It feels like a hollow victory,” he says, “I’ve won the battle, but the war is far from over. I’m still paying her £1,100 a month, 16 years after we divorced, which is crazy when you think we were only married for 13 years.”
Relaxed, tanned, rakish and minus his trademark hipster beard – “a supporter from the House of Lords advised me beards don’t go down well in the Supreme Court” – Mills, of Guildford, Surrey, is visibly unburdened since we first met in June last year, when, he admits, he was in “a very dark place”.
His phone constantly pings with messages from close friends and a global fan club of divorcees, for whom he is seemingly an inspiration. “It’s been a very lonely place,” he sighs. “The human impact of divorce is not talked about enough. These messages of support give me hope for the road ahead”.
This week’s Supreme Court ruling isn’t the peak of Mills’s journey, but another hard-won base camp in a long climb. Thirteen months ago, he told The Daily Telegraph he’d been “shafted,” after his attempt to end for-life divorce payments to his ex-wife resulted in them not being ceased
– but increased.
The Mills v Mills debacle – dubbed a “meal ticket for life” ruling – and its subsequent challenges, now viewed as a potential game-changer in divorce law history, began in 2002.
According to Maria, 52, she ran her own beauty business and supported the family while Mills finished his studies. They then worked together to set up his business before health problems towards the end of the marriage meant she could no longer work full time.
As part of the settlement the marital home was sold, with Maria receiving £230,000 to buy a house, mortgage-free, for her and their then eight-year-old son, and giving up her stake in the business in return for a lifelong maintenance payment of £1,100 a month.
Instead, she embarked on a series of property investments, immediately taking out a £125,000 mortgage to buy a three-bed house in Weybridge, Surrey, for £345,000. Next, she admitted to “unwisely” upgrading to a three-bed flat in Wimbledon in 2006, before moving to a £520,000 two-bed flat in a Victorian mansion block in Battersea a year later, financed with a £442,000 mortgage.
Over seven years, she spent her way through the original sum plus the capital from the house price increases, falling £42,000 into debt and returning to a rented home in Weybridge in 2009.
In 2014, Mills, who had remarried and had another son, took Maria to court to end the monthly payments, pointing to her “gross financial mismanagement”. She countered, arguing that she had run up debts “over many years as a single parent in poor health” and required another £341 per month to meet her basic needs.
The family judge disagreed with them both. But in February 2017, to widespread astonishment, the Appeal Court decided Mills should cover the shortfall and upped her payments to £1,441 per month – for life. After huge public interest, Maria was dubbed “Mrs Millstone” and subjected to an internet hate campaign. It is fair to say the decision also took its toll on her ex-husband. “I completely retreated into myself,” says Mills. “I took time off work. I had completely sleepless nights. My motivation was at rock bottom. How could it not be? They expected me to go back to work five to six-day weeks to subsidise her so she only had to work three days a week. I was working every hour God sent to pay for her to go shopping.
“Why do the courts excuse her extravagant and irresponsible spending? There is a requirement for her to become independent, so after all this time, why are the courts not telling her to do this?
“I found it morally bankrupt. I felt like a cash machine for life – this ruling extends until after my retirement, which is ridiculous”.
Mills credits a hug from his younger son – “he was only 10, but he was picking up how low I was feeling” – with motivating him to overcome this despair. He also read philosophy, began mountain biking and was buoyed by thousands of messages of support from divorced men and their new partners.
By this point, he had spent more than £50,000 on legal fees and could not afford any more. But, encouraged by generous offers of financial assistance from complete strangers, he started an online crowdfunding page to take his case to the Supreme Court.
“Over 250 people raised £13,500,” he says. “That covered all the court fees, but I still couldn’t afford a solicitor.
“Then Beverley Morris at Lodders gave her and her team’s time for free, because she really believed in the cause. That was a godsend. The cost of legal proceedings is prohibitive to getting
‘They expected me to work every hour God sent to pay for her to go shopping’
justice. Most people just give up.”
Ms Morris says that while this week’s court victory elicited many messages of congratulations from fellow lawyers “it is difficult to find a sense of success. The consequence for Graham is that he could be paying towards Mrs Mills for another 30 years”.
The ruling will, however, fuel debate about open-ended maintenance, which English and Welsh courts seem steadily less inclined to grant.
Mills is considering two potential endgames, either of which would shake the divorce industry. He could appeal for stepped-down payments over a short period, resulting in the agreement being terminated. Or he could challenge the entire original ruling, using what he calls “damning” new evidence he is keeping secret for now.
“The second option would get messy, but I’m considering it,” he says. “I feel like I’ve got the momentum to push for finality. Mainly, I want that for our grown-up son, who’s now 24. No child should have to see their parents arguing forever.
“I have no malice towards my ex-wife, I simply want us both to move on with our lives. The system is enabling dependency, which runs against the notions of modern equality. This is definitely not the final chapter. I’m going to continue until I stop paying her maintenance. She is completely capable of looking after herself.”