Page 170 - Combined file Solheim

URGENT
Note for Marina Faggianato for the round table meeting
Confidential in contemplation of proceedings

1. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTE
Counsel is urged to read this note and:

 The application for a Mc Kenzie Friend note (MF Bundle Bates No 119);

 LPJS’s Position Paper (Bates No 201); Page | 1

 HFC letter to Dawson Hart (Bates No 271);

 Dawson Hart response (Bates No 276)
The devil is in the detail.

Louise= LPJS and Anthony Siggers (ex-husband)=APMS Michael MJC (LPJS’s father) = MJC

-----------------KEY POINTS-----------------

2. NOT A TOLATA
 There was no “common understanding” of Mr Solheim having, or of ever gaining, an
interest in Nutley Place. His TOLATA compliant evidence only appeared at the last
minute: much like his debilitating tinnitus illness in his insurance claims it appeared as
afterthought;

 LPJS’s will disproves all claims of Mr Solheim’s ownership interest in Nutley Place. She
1
had discussed the will with Mr Solheim and he had full access to it at all times. It states
that– in the event of her death – he could remain in residence rent free as a “life
tenant” for a maximum of four years but would then have to leave without
2
compensation. HE HAD NO INTEREST;

 LPJS apologised to Mr Solheim for being “so hard” in her will but continued with
words to the effect “that this is the way it has to be” and that the house would pass to
her children. Mr Solheim did not object and, on the contrary, asked for the name of
the firm that prepared her will (Core Law). He said he would update his own will;
which he appears to have done’

 However, Mr Solheim has denied any conversation about wills, although his bank
3
account shows he paid Core Law £201 on 5 June 2017;
th
 His will could be critical to support his case but is not listed for disclosure. He never
discussed it with LPJS;

 LPJS temporarily banned Mr Solheim’s son from Nutley Place: he was merely a tenant
and could not object.

3. GIFT OF £500,000 ON 21 DECEMBER 2016
ST
 LPJS’s believed at the time, and still does, that the transfer was a gift – motivated by
Mr Solheim’s generosity.

Bates Number Bates No170
E:\COBASCO CURRENT\LOUS DIVORCE\CURRENT PAPERS\Sigve Solheim litigation\Short note for MF rev1.docx