Page 91 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
9 Simply stated, the Defendant’s position is that the source of funding is
determinative to Claimant’s intention for making the transfer and it is in every
sense a “gift” over which he had abandoned all interest.

2. CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS

10 The Claimant seeks to mirage a TOLATA type beneficial interest in the FDs home –
2
Nutley Place, Nutley, East Sussex - by reason of:

a. A payment of £500,000 made on 21 December 2016 into the FD’s mortgage
st
account with Barclays Woolwich; entirely of his own volition and with no
written or oral agreement ;
3
b. Payments totalling £35,000 - from a total purchase price of £70,000 - to
enable the FD to buy two plots of land adjoining Nutley Place;

c. DIY house maintenance: at present of unquantified value:

d. Loans totalling £82,164.01: to cover defaults in maintenance payments from
her ex-husband: (Anthony Peden Mark Siggers [APMS]).

11 The Claimant requires the above amounts to be collected through a declaration of
trust, backed by an order for sale of Nutley Place, and £82,164.01 by bank transfer.
The total claim amounted to £617,164.01.

12 On 10 April 2019, the Claimant made a Part 36 offer amounting to £619,528.38
th
plus his costs, to be paid within three months of acceptance. Failing this, Nutley
Place must be sold “forthwith”, and costs paid on an indemnity basis with interest
of up to 10% above base rate. It also required the return of personal property the
Claimant allegedly abandoned when, against all his previous assurances, he
flounced off to pastures new.

13 Unsurprisingly, the FD was advised not to accept the offer. She, her children and
parents had been tormented by eight years of skulduggery, harassment and
extortion by her ex-husband. She had fought with every fibre to keep her children
in their schools and universities and in the only home they had ever known. The
FD’s youngest son suffers from ADHD and is especially vulnerable to change,
pressure and uncertainty. All four have taken the Claimant’s abandonment very
badly, because they loved him and miss him.

14 The FD was unwilling to capitulate to the Claimant’s demands for four main
reasons. They:

 Were false, ridiculous and extorsive;

 Were based on his funding which is of questionable provenance; may be
“tainted” in money laundering terms, and subject to reclaim by insurers or law
Page2
enforcement;

Bates Number Bates No091
2
In laypersons’ language
3 By the First or Second Defendant who is a co-signatory to the account