Page 165 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 164

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
c
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
• "the Claimant made significant direct contributions to the Property",

• "in reliance on the agreement between the Claimant---"
• "at no stage during the time the parties lived together did the First Defendant
assert that the Property was beneficially held by her alone and by her words and
actions she confirmed the common intention that the Claimant held a beneficial
interest in the Property"

201. All of the above are contrived and untrue. For example, in a recorded conversation in
April 2018, the Claimant said:

"I feel. sort of. a bit sort of uneven in every way because it's your house and I
should be so grateful to live here, and I get told that all the time"

The Claimant frequently used such phrases that show he accepted that he was little
more than a lodger. That is, until he consulted solicitors and TOLA TA appeared.
202. On 8 October 2015m the Claimant borrowed £16,537.50 from his good friend
th
David Spencer Butler. Mr Spencer Butler wanted security which the Claimant could not
provide. Thus, LPJS was asked to counter-sign the agreement as the sole owner of Nutley
Place. Even his closest friends knew he had no ownership interest in Nutley Place.

11.2 TOLATA:LPJS'S WILL: 2ND NOVEMBER 2016
LP JS's will, which was executed on 2nd November 2016 and was read by and discussed with
the Claimant, makes It abundantly clear that he had no financial stake In Nutley Place and that
his TOLATA claims are false.

203. The will states that: on LPJS's death, the Claimant:

• Would be allowed to remain - as a "life tenant" - in Nutley Place for the later of
four years or until such time as her youngest children attained the age of 18. At
that time, he would have to move out without compensation;

• If he remarried or found another partner before that time, he would have to
leave Nutley Place [with NO compensation]:

• He had absolutely no equity interest in the property and NEVER WOULD HAVE
because 100% of the equity in Nutley Place would pass to LPJS's four children;

The Claimant read the will and he discussed the implications with LPJS. He raised no
objection to it. In fact, he appeared pleased that LPJS was, in effect, granting him
four years rent free, providing he continued as stepfather to her children.

204. There are four associated points to note in relation to LPJS's will and the Claimant's
alleged equity interest in Nutley Place:

• LPJS's will remained (until the day the Claimant left) unsecured in the office she
shared with the Claimant in Nutley Place. He had unrestricted access to it, and it
is an almost certainty that his fingerprints and DNA will prove this;
41 I Page