Page 163 - Combined file Solheim

6. On 28 October 2016, he sent a Whatsapp message to the FD referring to the
th
compensation (of £977,026.07 up to that time) and stating:
“It’s all ours so you don’t need to worry.
Page | 2
Let’s work towards the next BIG ONE!”
2
7. On 21 December 2016 he paid £500,000 into the FD’s mortgage account to
st
3
provide funding that could be drawn down to cover household living expenses .
4
8. In fact, the convoluted, if not furtive, way in which he deposited the £500,000
guaranteed that it could only be withdrawn when Nutley Place was sold. It remains
untouched and is thus the drawdown loan that never was.

9. The FD’s ex-husband [in an appeal to the Central Family Court to reduce his life-
long maintenance and school fees Order] drew attention to the £500,000 which he
described as a gift. He argued that it created an inequality in their assets and asked
the Court to make an adjustment .
5
10. The £500,000 became a running sore in the FD’s divorce proceedings. Over and
over again, the Claimant doggedly refused to clarify the status of the £500,000. The
Claimant would not deny it was a gift, nor would he claim (as he now is) that it was
a loan or (later under legal advice) a “contribution to property”. He repeatedly and
angrily refused to give evidence in the Family Court and was blissfully unconcerned
that the FD’s ex-husband believed he had blocked the money and threatened to
6
withdraw the lot for himself.
11. The obvious reason for the Claimant’s lack of concern is that the process he used to
deposit the money made it impossible for anyone to touch it until Nutley Place was
sold or the mortgage otherwise redeemed.

12. The Claimant knew that if the £500,000 was a loan, [or legally reclassified as such
by agreement between himself and the FD], the ex-husband’s claim for reduced
maintenance would most likely fail. He was also paranoid that his then solicitors
and Diamond Insurance would discover £525,397.60 compensation paid to him by
AIG on 26 October 2016 and which he had failed to disclose. The Claimant was
th
unwilling to discuss anything to do with the £500,000 or his financial affairs
generally and became angry when the possibility was discussed .
7
13. It became obvious that the Claimant was determined to disassociate himself from
the £500,000. That is, until the Final Hearing was over, when his subsidized world
came to an end and he was preparing to escape to pastures new. Then he could not
shout loudly enough that the £500,000 had been a loan (or a “contribution to
property”) all along. What a dramatic change of position!
14. In the days leading up to the Final Hearing, the Claimant said he could not attend as
a witness because he had to stay at home “to look after the dog”. Even that was
untrue. The dog was deserted while he made an unnecessary trip – in one of his

2 Referring to the duplicative AIG and Diamond Insurance claims
3 Approximately half of the compensation received at that time
4 It also reduced the monthly interest charges
5 Which it finally did in May 2018.
Bates Number Bates No163
Whose name remained on the mortgage but not the title deeds
6
7 See paragraph 5.4 of the McKenzie narrative for an example of his attitude