Page 167 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 166

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
c
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS

211. The Claimant's attitude changed dramatically once he moved out of Nutley Place and
now he cannot shout strongly enough that the £500,000 was a loan and/or a
"contribution to property". It is a great pity he refused to assert this before LPJS's Final
Hearing.

212. In April 2018, LPJS retained Counsel specifically to advise on how the inconsistencies in
her statement should be resolved and how the loan - gift confusion should be dealt with.
The advice given may be privileged, but in essence Counsel said he would deal with it
"in the wash"; that the court would decide on hearing the evidence and that LPJS
should not worry about it.

213. In LPJS's Form E, dated 5 February 2018, she was torn and did not know whether the
£500,000 was a loan or a gift. She tried to cover both eventualities after speaking to the
Court and showing two sets of figures with annotations.

Counsel emphasised, however, that the Claimant's evidence would be game changing if
he were to attend Court as a witness or produced a sworn statement that the £500,000
had been a loan. He refused to do this, saying he would have to stay at home to look
after the dog. THUS, THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
£500,000 WAS A GIFT.

13 WORK ON PROPERTY AND CONTROL

In his initial schedules the Claimant argued for recovery of costs for work done on Nutley Place.
He seems to have dropped that claim, but if it becomes an issue at trial evidence will be
produced of massive cost inflation and shoddy work. At the present time two of the bathrooms
that the Claimant renovated are out of use and will be extremely costly to rectify.

214. From time to time the Claimant's children stayed at Nutley Place. His teenaged son­
Cameron Solheim - could be a problem and disrupted family life. LPJS temporarily
suspended him from her home Although the Claimant objected to this, he recognised he
had no authority to overturn LPJS and on Cameron's next visit to the UK he and his father
stayed in a hotel.

14 SNATCHING BACK GIFTS

The evidence shows that the Claimant has a propensity towards making gifts and then
snatching them back; converting them in his own mind into loans or more recently arguing that
they are "contributions to property".

215. Immediately after the Claimant had flounced off in July 2018 he produced three lists of
items that he wanted to be returned to him or paid for and told LPJS's parents at a
th
meeting on 14 July 2018 that "virtually everything" he had ever gifted had been loans
that were subject to immediate repayment. MJC pointed out that this was ridiculous,
untrue and unacceptable and that his claims would be contested.

216. On 20 August 2018 at 22. 21 the Claimant emailed LPJS and MJC with revised lists
th
reclassifying some as gifts. The email stated:

"all gifts, like Lou's car, horse. horse trailer, Sam's car will remain as giffs ".
43 I P a g e