Page 129 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT

 “the property was not just a home was also a joint venture in which the parties
made an investment of time and money”

 “it was acknowledged at no stage during the time the parties lived together did
the first defendant assert that the property was beneficially held by her alone:
rather by words and actions she confirmed the common intention that the
claimant held a beneficial interest in the property”

14 THESE ARE ALL EGREGIOUS LIES. There is not a single written or oral agreement
along the lines the Claimant now argues.

15 The FD willingly admits that she and the Claimant had - from time to time -
discussed the dream of buying a smallholding together to convert into an
equestrian centre once her children had left home (that is expected to be sometime
after 2022 ). However, there was never any question of the Claimant having a
8
financial interest in Nutley Place and no way that he could have honestly
misunderstood the position.

16 On the contrary there are many, mainly mind-numbing emails, WhatsApp messages
and recorded conversations that prove the alleged, recently invented, litigation
supportive TOLATA conversations are a figment of the Claimant’s imagination.

17 For example:
(a) Taped conversation on 27 February 2018
TH
FD “ well that’s life. I’m not going to have anything either”

Claimant “well that’s where you can take some equity out of your house”

(b) Tape conversation of 5th March 2018
Claimant “I can list my financial obligations and what I have and you can
have that in writing but I nearly think I should be represented
now because I feel, I feel, ----- I am up in court with him not you.
It’s not you and your kids because you basically have the asset of
this house and I have said to you, you’re just going to have to sell
it to get on with it…..

18 The FD decided to rewrite her will in the Spring of 2016 because she had been
unnerved by the Claimant’s behaviour. He had been out of work for months and
showed no interest in finding employment. He was miserable and had flounced off
to rent a house for himself. The FD was worried who would look after her children
– in the Claimant’s absence - if she died and wanted to put her affairs in order .
9
19 The FD’s will (Exhibit A) – which she retained Core Law to prepare - confirms the
true position;

 The FD explained the precise terms of her will to the Claimant in the autumn of
2016. He had no objections to it. The FD felt that she was being “a bit hard ” Page3
10

8 Hopefully to university
9 At the time the FD first spoke to Core Law, the Claimant expected but had not received any compensation.
Bates Number Bates No129
By asking him to be co-guardian of her children and then effectively evicting him from Nutley Place when they reached the
10
age of 18