Page 41 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
He did not;

 say how much he intended to deposit or when and LPJS did not ask;
 say whether the “pay off” was a gift or a loan or both although he made it clear it
was for living expenses ;
164
 make even the slightest suggestion – as he has since consulting lawyers – that it was
a “contribution to property”;

 ask if LPJS would agree to secure his “pay off of the mortgage” in any way and if
he had even raised the possibility of a share in the “sacrosanct” Nutley Place, LPJS
would have consulted her children and parents and she did not do this..
165

9.2 THE £500,000 GIFT:ABOUT THE MORTGAGE
174. The mortgage is offered as flexible package and consists of two elements. The first is
the long-term property loan and the other a “feeder account” which is akin to
conventional bank current account. Deposits made into the feeder account can be made
and withdrawn subject to being within agreed limits. From time to time, Barclays offsets
any credit balance in the feeder account – or in any other nominated Barclays account -
against the mortgage before calculating monthly interest. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT
PAYMENTS CREDITED TO THE LONG - TERM MORTGAGE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE
WITHDRAWN (see paragraph 184 and Attachment 7)

175. The Claimant could have linked his own Barclays account to LPJS’s mortgage and
automatically benefitted from interest credits. This would have been the recommended,
easiest and most secure method if the payment was a loan or contribution to property.

176. He could also have made the payment electronically, but the convoluted process
necessary to achieve his objectives required him to visit two banks: one of them possibly
166
twice. He had a reason for choosing the convoluted process he did.

9.3 THE £500,000 GIFT:CHRONOLOGY
177. The Claimant asked LPJS to let him refer to a copy of the mortgage statement and to
give her permission for him to speak to Barclays to find how a payment should be made.
The Claimant took over the telephone and spoke to Barclays for a few minutes. He noted
details on the account statement (Attachment 8) and shortly thereafter left Nutley Place to
visit the butchers and other shops in Uckfield. LPJS did not know that he intended to visit
any bank, let alone make a transfer that day.

178. The mortgage account had a debit balance of £703,046.63 and the feeder account a
debit balance of £20,000. Thus, there was absolutely no capacity for funds to be
withdrawn and this is glaringly obvious from even a cursory glance at the statement.

164 Not a contribution to property
165 Following Judge Bowman’s order describing Nutley Place as “sacrosanct”
166 Which will be exposed in cross-examination or in discovery
Bates Number Bates No041 35 | Pa ge