Page 85 - Combined file Solheim

URGENT
For Marina before RTM of 27 July 2020
th
Addendum to File Note for RTM in a rush
Mr Solheim thus misled LPJS and did not tell her what he had done. (In fact,
he had no permission to pay any money into her main mortgage account and
his very brief conversations with her on 21 December 2016 were misleading
st
and did not involve him establishing an interest in Nutley Place).
7 June 2017 APMS raises the point that the £500k was a gift from Mr Solheim to LPJS and
th
threatens to take it. He wants his maintenance reduced
Mr Solheim not phased over APMS’s threat (Because he knows nobody can
make a withdrawal until the mortgage is redeemed). Refuses to discuss with
or write to Barclays: wants no connection or documentation
19 September LPJS Form E shows the mortgage at £702k and no loan of £500k (Final
th
GIFT Hearing (FH) bundle Bates No 154)
30 November Mr Solheim refuses to discuss. Therefore, LPJS unilaterally re-designates the
th
£500k as a loan to stop APMS grabbing it. Mr Solheim not interested because
he knows the £500k cannot be drawn down by anyone?
th
30 January 2018 LPJS swears a statement “Sigve suggested that the (£500k) should be
LOAN temporarily deposited -as a loan-to the Barclays offset account for living
expenses” (FH Bates 429 etc). He did not pay it into the offset account
th
5 February 2018 LPJS Form E2--- with a covering note that the “Court aware”, a mortgage of
GIFT £700k and no mention of a £500k loan (FH Bates 442)
5 March 2018 Audio recording of 5 March 2018 angry response from Mr Solheim when
th
th
refusing to clarify the status of the loan/gift or to give evidence (MF Bates
039)
March-April Determined attempts by MJC and LPJS to persuade Mr Solheim to clarify the
status of the loan/gift which he refused to do. Also refused to attend a
conference with Richard Balchin to resolve the status of the loan-gift

It became clear (see MF Bundle Bates No 184) that Barclays would not allow
funds to be withdrawn from the main mortgage account. Thus, the alleged
loan for living expenses was useless. Mr Solheim is believed to have
understood this before making the deposit and INTENDED IT. Barclays makes
this restriction clear. The problem was that he wanted to disconnect from the
payment (see MF Bates No 222 et seq)—with cheque to Barclays Bank PLC

Months later, Mr Solheim told MJC that he must have paid the £500K into
the main mortgage by mistake and that he was a “silly boy”. This was an
incredible explanation given the steps he had taken to get the £500k into the
main mortgage account so that he would hide his own name from Barclays-
Woolwich and the true destination of is transfer in his own account
9 April 2018 Conference with Richard Balchin in Chelmsford. He said court would resolve
th
the discrepancy and not to worry. Advised against summonsing Mr Solheim
as a witness……and that it was not necessary for LPJS prepare new statements
or revised Form E. Mr Balchin said such discrepancies in evidence were not
unusual and that the court would come to a decision based on ALL of the
facts.

Suggested it would be worthwhile persuading Mr Solheim to sign a schedule
of his assets, liabilities, income and expenditure, which could be presented to
the court. Alternatively to persuade him to attend. He refused because he
had to look after the dog
Balchin keeps options Mr Balchin explained the £500k in his skeleton argument as follows:
open “22.12.16 Wife’s partner put his £500,000 into the mortgage-offset account”.
21 May 2018 Mr Solheim (very reluctantly) prepares a schedule of assets and earnings. This
st
is incomplete and contains extensive falsehoods. LPJS, MJC and Richard
Balchin decide the document cannot be presented at the Final Hearing. This
appears to be one of the main reasons LPJS’s maintenance was cut
Mr Solheim’s claim against Diamond insurance was settled and soon after he
classifies the £500k as a loan which he wants immediately returned. Dramatic
change in his position now risk of exposure removed
GIFT LPJS reverts the status of the £500k as a gift; as she was entitled to do
Mr Solheim subsequently consults Dawson Hart and claims the £500K was
not a loan but a TOLATA compliant contribution to property. Very
“fortunate” verbals

Bates Number Bates No085