$200,000 to the Bank of Butterfield's real estate firm Betco.

Mrs. MacMillan dragged realtors Coopers and Betco into a lengthy Supreme Court civil case involving herself and Canadian tycoon Mr. Michael DeGroote.

It started when Mr. DeGroote took her to court after she changed her mind about selling him her home, Perot's Island.

Mr. DeGroote eventually won, with Mrs. MacMillan threatening to take the case to the Appeals Court.

Coopers were believed to have come to an agreement with Mrs. MacMillan on their Supreme Court legal bills.

But Mr. DeGroote and Betco asked Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground to make Mrs. MacMillan pay all their "reasonable'' costs, well above the standard share normally paid by the loser of a case.

A major plank of their argument was that the Supreme Court trial would not have happened if Mrs. MacMillan had not made a sworn statement on Christmas Eve, 1991.

The statement was "regrettably false'' in four areas concerning Betco, Mr.

Ground ruled.

He also ruled that Mrs. MacMillan's explanation, that she signed what her lawyers put in front of her, "at least negates dishonesty on her part''.

But in a five-page judgment on costs, released on Friday, Mr. Ground said he believed the case against Betco was "always grossly overpleaded in a way which was bound to cause damage to their professional reputation''.

"They were brought into the action at the defendant's election at a late stage,'' he said. "I find it very hard to resist the inference that this was largely done for tactical reasons, and certainly think that it is fair to say that they got caught in the cross-fire between the two main parties.'' And he ordered Mrs. MacMillan to pay almost all of Betco's legal bills.

Mr. Ground also ordered Mrs. MacMillan to pay Mr. DeGroote's costs of action taxed on a "common fund basis'' or about five to 10 percent more than would have normally been awarded to a plaintiff.

"I have to say that the defence, and counterclaim relied upon grounds which were arguable but essentially insubstantial and shadowy,'' he wrote.

"In those circumstances I think that this should be reflected in the order of costs, and that the costs which the plaintiff is entitled to recoup from the defendant should be assessed on a more generous basis than the usual rather restrictive `party and party' basis.

"However, I do not think that this should be to the extent contended for by the plaintiff, because I consider that an award of indemnity (almost all of the legal) costs -- as against a defendant -- should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, involving grave impropriety going to the heart of the action and affecting its whole conduct.'' Mr. Ground said that was not the case in the DeGroote vs MacMillan case.

Although he considered Mrs. MacMillan's sworn statement of December 24, 1991 "a grave impropriety'', Mr. Ground said: "I cannot say that it went to the heart of the matter as eventually fought, because the defendant subsequently relied upon different or modified allegations which sustained the continuance of the action''.

None of the lawyers involved in the case could be reached for comment.