Page 128 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT

7 The FD was unwilling to capitulate to the Claimant’s egregious demands for four
main reasons. They:

 Were false, ridiculous and extorsive;

 Were based on his funding which is of questionable provenance; may be
“tainted” in money laundering terms, and subject to reclaim by insurers or law
enforcement;

 Would result in loss of the family home and…..

 …. in the FD’s youngest son being removed from his present school.

8 The FD has been willing – at all stages – to reach a fair settlement. She has not filed
a counterclaim but contends that it would be at least £163,628 for the Claimant’s
4
derisory underpayment of living expenses and £765,000 for loss of her lifetime
maintenance from her ex-husband.
5

9 If natural justice were to prevail the Claimant would confirm that the £500,000
was a gift and that he owes the FD between £231,300 and £311,464 (see McKApp
para 234). However, she wants this hostile litigation brought to an end and would
be willing to consider a clean break.

10 The following paragraphs summarise important aspects of the case.

3. TOLATA TYPE INTEREST IN NUTLEY PLACE

11 The Claimant had never mentioned TOLATA until after he had flounced off and
6
consulted lawyers. Then, all of a sudden, he discovered a new lexicon in which
“gifts” became “loans” and “loans” became “contributions towards property” and
“lodger” became a “joint owner”.

12 The Claimant has attempted to rewrite history using TOLATA conforming terms-
that were never used, substituted for those that were, or ignored when reality did
not support his false claims.

7
13 He states :
 “she treated him as though he was a joint owner of the property”;

 “she customarily referred to the property as ‘our home’”

 “there was an agreement and common intention that the claimant had a
beneficial interest in the property”

 “in reliance on the agreement between the claimant and the first defendant the Page2
claimant made significant financial contributions to the property”

4 Her then lawyers told her the filing fee would be £10,000, which she could not afford
5 The FD recognises that the Family Court has become less disposed towards lifetime maintenance and that there was no
guarantee that the prevailing Order would have been confirmed. However, had the Court known the Claimant would
decamp immediately the FD’s maintenance was cut its decision would have been different
Bates Number Bates No128
In early July 2018
6
7 Claim date 12 February 2019
th