Former estate agent makes bad property purchases – with ex-husband ordered to pay up

A former estate agent lost money on a series of property purchases after being awarded a divorce settlement, the Court of Appeal has heard.

As a result, her ex-husband, a surveyor, must now up his monthly payments to her and has been told that he must support her for life.

Maria Mills, 51, formerly an estate agent in Notting Hill, was originally awarded £1,100 a month from Graham Mills, 50, after 13 years of marriage. There was also a lump sum of £230,000 – most of the capital that the couple had – on the basis that she could buy herself a home.

The Appeal Court heard that she blew this lump sum and that Mr Mills should now pay her £1,441 per month.

Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard that the couple married in 1988, had a now grown-up son, separated in 2001 after 13 years of marriage and divorced the following year.

The court heard that Mrs Mills had made some “unwise” property investments, moving from a house in Weybridge to a flat in Wimbledon, and then to an apartment in a mansion block in Battersea.

After selling that flat she was left “without any of the capital”, the court was told, and was now living in a rented home.

The court heard that each time she moved, she increased her mortgage liabilities, but failed to make enough profit from the sales.

Frank Feehan, representing Mrs Mills, said she had been left with the responsibility for the couple’s young child and without enough money to buy a house that she considered “good enough”.

He said his client was “unable to meet her basic needs”.

In the ruling, Sir Ernest Ryder said Mr Mills had the ability to make the increased maintenance “until a further order of the court”.

  • In a piece in the Mail on Sunday subsequent to initial reports of the Case, Mrs Mills denied making poor property investments. She said that each property had sold for more than she had bought it for. She also said she had relinquished her stake in the surveying property company she and her husband had set up, and regretted letting go of her directorship, shares, pensions and life insurance.
sprift end of

Email the story to a friend


  1. eltell

    This ruling seems somewhat harsh. Is there something we havent been told?

    1. AgencyInsider

      Agreed. There must be more to this than what we have read. As usual the only real winners are the lawyers.

  2. MagneticBullet35

    Aside from the obvious injustice of this, it’s basically the judge saying the woman isn’t responsible for her wealth, even post-divorce. Sound highly sexist to me – she’s a grown woman – but it’s not surprising the usual claxon of outrage hasn’t sounded. She should be allowed to go poor and work it out. Another report on this says she works for 2 days a week in a beauty salon. She can start by taking a third day and go from there…


You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a reply

If you want to create a user account so you can log in, click here

More top news stories

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.