Page 92 - Combined file Solheim
P. 92
CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
Would result in loss of the family home and…..
…. in the FD’s youngest son being removed from his present school.
15 The FD has been willing – at all stages – to reach a fair settlement. She has not filed
a counterclaim but contends that it would be at least £163,628 for the Claimant’s
4
underpayment of living expenses and £765,000 for loss of her lifetime
maintenance from her ex-husband which was caused in furtherance of his admitted
5
dishonesty and the Defendant’s detrimental reliance on his promise
16 If natural justice were to prevail the Claimant would confirm that the £500,000
was a gift and that he owes the FD between £231,300 and £311,464 (see McKApp
para 234). However, she wants this hostile litigation brought to an end and would
be willing to consider a clean break.
17 The following paragraphs summarise important aspects of the case.
3. TOLATA TYPE INTEREST IN NUTLEY PLACE
18 The Claimant had never mentioned TOLATA until after he had flounced off and
6
consulted lawyers. Then, all of a sudden, he discovered a new lexicon in which
“gifts” became “loans” and “loans” became “contributions towards property” and
“lodger” became a “joint owner”.
19 The Claimant has attempted to rewrite history using TOLATA conforming terms-
that were never used, substituted for those that were, or ignored when reality did
not support his false claims.
20 He states :
7
“she treated him as though he was a joint owner of the property”;
“she customarily referred to the property as ‘our home’”
“there was an agreement and common intention that the claimant had a
beneficial interest in the property”
“in reliance on the agreement between the claimant and the first defendant the
claimant made significant financial contributions to the property”
“the property was not just a home was also a joint venture in which the parties
made an investment of time and money”
“it was acknowledged at no stage during the time the parties lived together did
the first defendant assert that the property was beneficially held by her alone:
rather by words and actions she confirmed the common intention that the Page3
claimant held a beneficial interest in the property”
4 Her then lawyers told her the filing fee would be £10,000, which she could not afford
5 The FD recognises that the Family Court has become less disposed towards lifetime maintenance and that there was no
guarantee that the prevailing Order would have been confirmed. However, had the Court known the Claimant would
decamp immediately the FD’s maintenance was cut its decision would have been different
Bates Number Bates No092
In early July 2018
6
th
7 Claim date 12 February 2019
