Page 50 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
This implies his eagerness to reclassify gifts as loans after the event and to modify the
truth to fit the TOLATA principles.

217. In March 2018, the Claimant incorporated CRS Aviation Ltd and gifted LPJS with 50%
of the shares and a directorship. On 1 April 2019 without any discussion he grabbed back
st
her shares and recorded her resignation as a director.

218. The Claimant often boasted that he had allocated shares in his brother’s company
(Cruisin AS) to his ex-wife Sarah Solheim and that he had “conned her into handing them
back because she was stupid and didn’t realise their worth”. He willingly accepted a
Court Order to pay off Sarah’s credit card debts then changed his mind and retained a
debt consolidation company. This resulted in Nutley Place’s credit record being harmed.
By July 2018, when he left LPJS, the debt had still not been settled.

219. In December 2019, the Claimant required return of a Mountfield sit-on lawnmower
which he had previously told LPJS in writing she could keep. He also laid claim to
186
another lawnmower which LPJS had bought from her own funds before the Claimant
appeared on the scene.

220. He is claiming for the return of one missing canvas deck shoe, yet remarkably is not
concerned over the £30,000 interest that he would have accumulated if he genuinely
believed the £500,000 in the mortgage account belonged to him. It is either another
Freudian Slip or a further ploy to disassociate himself from the £500,000.

221. On 30 May 2018, the Claimant reclaimed £6,655 for LPJS’s dental work. However, in
an earlier SMS message he had said:

“……. I bought you a car, horse trailer, horse the list goes on… I have just paid for your
dental bill and I am doing this because I love you”

222. The Claimant repeatedly bombasted that he was providing LPJS and her children with
a lifestyle not available to his natural offspring, that this was unfair and made him feel
guilty. He said he was especially upset that the Siggers children were being educated
privately, whereas his were in state schools. These arguments would be meritless if he was
simply “lending” LPJS the money to pay school fees.

Also, after receiving around £1.4 million (tax free) in insurance compensation he made no
effort to move his two children into UK private schools but instead continued spending
187
lavishly on his new fiancée, on additional Porsche cars, holidays and luxury ocean going
boat

223. The Claimant gave LPJS his mother’s wedding ring as a token of his commitment to
their relationship and she cherishes it, despite the current acrimony. He now demands its
return.

186 On 24 September 2018 at 17.33 WhatsApp
th
187 Which was his argument for demanding return of the “loans”
Bates Number Bates No050 44 | Pa ge