Page 103 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 102

I

Until taking legal advice in xxxxxxx Mr Solheim had never suggested that the £500,000 was
"a contribution towards property" but has since attempted to rewrite history to support this
false narrative.

st
,lt He eventually produced the schedule of assets and earnings for the Final Hearing on 21 May
r/ 2018 as a substitute for his own attendance as a witness because he "had to look after the
ff/ dog". Even that explanation was untruthful.

• �� .. Mr Solheim's deliberate ambiguity was the direct and only cause of LPJS diverging statements
\Y
and declarations. He refused to be pinned down even though it would be in his interest to
f classify the £500,000 as a loan. This analyss exposes his ambiguities and suggests the reason
for them.

3. BACKGROUND
At various times - especially in late 2017 and early 2018 - MJC and LPJS had emphasised to
Mr Solheim the criticality of his participation at the Final Hearing (scheduled for March 2018
and subsequently adjourned to May 2018) to rebut APMS's evidence that;

• the £500,000 Mr Solheim had paid into LPJS's mortgage account on 21 December
st
2016 was a gift; � ii

• Mr Solheim would receive £4 million from his insurance claims. was a "wealthy man"
and in a position to take over APMS's responsibilities to maintain LPJS and her
children;

• LP JS' s assets were disproportionate to his own and that her equity in Nutley Place was
more than enough to maintain her and her children;

Mr Solheim made it clear (in conversations with MJC and LPJS) that he had no intention of
giving evidence in the Family Court. He doggedly refused to say whether he considered the
£500,000 to be a loan or a gift or to explain why he was unwilling to discuss his insurance
compensation or financial affairs generally.

MJC told him:

• "You understand that if the £500,000 was a loan it is in your overwhelming intere
to say so: don't you? If you don't clarify the position APMS will be released from his
maintenance obligations·. Mr Solhiem agreed but responded that his "finances were
none of the fuckin court's business and that he was not on trial";

• MJC asked "is the reason you will not clarify the status of the £500,000 because you
don't want to be ordered to increase maintenance for your ex-wife?" Mr Solheim
replied "No";

• MJC asked ; "Then why won't you clarify the positn". Mr Solheim responded "It is
what it is"

As an alternative to appearing as a witness at the Final Hearing in March 2018, MJC asked Mr ,.,tbl1�
Solheim to produce a comprehensive written analysis or a sworn statement of income. rt71�{1"
expenditure. assets and liabilities. MJC said he would pay for counsel to prepare it or would J1
assist in any way necessary. Mr Solheim refused. point blank. to cooperate. The March 2018
hearing was adjourned for scheduling reasons. N
QJ
00
ro
0...