Page 43 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
has more recently – that the deposit was a TOLATA compliant contribution towards
property. LPJS believed that she could drawdown living expenses. Then in the Summer of
2017, when she tried to make the first withdrawal to pay school fees, Barclays told her
that her ex-husband had, in effect, frozen the account.

185. She discussed the problem with the Claimant who was totally unphased by it and was
not even prepared to contact either the bank or APMS. LPJS raised the matter in Court
and on 25 October 2017, Judge Tidbury was outraged over APMS’s behaviour and said
th
it “was a very unfortunate thing to do” and that he would face serious consequences if he
did not release the block. On 11 December 2017, Deputy District Judge MacGregor
th
Ordered (Attachment 9) APMS to comply with Judge Tidbury’s criticism and on 18
th
December 2017 (Attachment 10), he did so, but the bank refused to cooperate
(Attachment 6).

186. Recent enquiries have revealed that the convoluted way in which the Claimant made
the deposit ensured that the £500,000 could only be liquidated when entire mortgage
was redeemed. There is little doubt that the Claimant knew this , which explains:
170

 His unphased attitude to APMS’s threat that he could withdraw the £500,000 of
himself. The Claimant knew this was impossible;

 His change of story from the £500,000 being a loan to a TOLATA “contribution to
property”. The Claimant realised he would have to force a sale of Nutley Place to
stand any chance of getting his hands on the money, but a simple, undocumented loan
would not achieve this.

It also raises the possibility that the Claimant deliberately sabotaged the Final Hearing so
that LPJS would lose and would then have no option but to sell Nutley Place. At that
time, he could exert pressure to reclaim the £500,000 or to negotiate an interest in a new
home. In any case, the transfer removed the £500,000 from scrutiny.

9.6 THE £500,000 GIFT:WOULD NEVER HAVE AN INTEREST IN NUTLEY PLACE
187. At the time of making the transfer , the Claimant knew from LPJS’s will that he had
171
no interest in or security over Nutley Place and would never have one . He was not
172
given, and did not ask for, a word of oral or written security or mention repayment
terms.

188. Subsequently, he made every effort to disassociate himself from the £500,000, until he
announced that he was leaving LPJS when nothing could stop him shouting that it had
been a loan. Then, when he remembered that to get his money back Nutley Place had to
be sold, the £500,000 became a “contribution to property” and was supported by lots of
historical conversations, that fortuitously parroted verbiage that could have been copied
directly from a TOLATA text book.

170 Barclays cashiers explain the position when a deposit is made
171 And at all times before and after
172 Because it is made clear that her 100% interest would pass to her four children
Bates Number Bates No043 37 | Pa ge