Opprobrium against fresh divorcee Heather Mills seems to be widespread, with the judge handling the case joining the ranks of people who disapprove of the animal right activist’s words and actions.

Heather Mills may walk away from this situation significantly richer, but she sure isn’t cheered on by her many fans.

A divorce settlement was finally reached Monday, when a High Court judge ordered former Beatle Paul McCartney to pay his estranged wife $48.6 million. The ruling was imposed after the couple failed to reach an agreement last month.

Mills represented herself during the trial, claiming to thus save bucket loads of money that could be donated to charity. Speaking outside court, Mills told reporters she was “very, very, very pleased” with the decision and took the time to criticize everyone else involved: her former husband, his attorney, Fiona Shackleton, the judge.

She also explained that she would appeal the publication of the entire judgment, claiming it would endanger her and her 4-year-old daughter’s lives, as it contained private details. Mills was denied permission to appeal the publication on Tuesday.

The details are pouring now and it is no pretty portrait they outline of Mills.

The 58-page High Court ruling on the couple’s divorce settlement was made public Tuesday and clearly shows Justice Hugh Bennett was not impressed with Mills.

He praised the 65-year-old singer for his “consistent, accurate and honest” presentation of the facts in the case and criticized the 40-year-old Mills for making “exorbitant financial demands” and for being “not just inconsistent and inaccurate, but also less than candid.”

The judge’s verdict: “Overall she was a less than impressive witness.”

The ruling confirms that Mills had sought $250 million of her former husband’s fortune, five times the sum she did receive in the end. The judge expressed his belief that Mills was under the illusion that she deserved to be a beneficiary of McCartney’s luxurious lifestyle for the rest of her days, just because she had been married to him for four years.

“The wife must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-belief. The objective facts do not support her case,” Bennett wrote.

As to Mills’ claims, the judge called them “unreasonable” and concluded that $48.6 million – some $34,000 for each day of her marriage – were sufficient. “Although she strongly denied it, her case boils down to the syndrome of ‘me too’ or ‘If he has it, I want it, too,’” he wrote.

Bennett also did not hesitate to describe Mills as “her own worst enemy,” a woman with “an explosive and volatile character.”