Page 94 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
27 In fact, he seems to have been so impressed that he asked the FD for Core Law’s
contact details, so that he could retain them to prepare his own will. The FD
emailed him with this information on 2 July 2016 at 15.11.
nd
28 On 28 October 2016, the Claimant sent the FD a WhatsApp message (see Exhibit
th
C), elated that he had received a total of almost £900,000 in his bank from various
insurance claims. He continued:

“It’s all ours so you don’t need to worry!!!!. Let’s work together towards
11
the next BIG ONE!!!!

29 The FD signed her will on 2 November 2016 (Exhibit A) and on 4 November
th
nd
2016, the Claimant sent her a WhatsApp message saying that he had signed his will
and that he had booked 8 bedrooms and a dining room for 65 people at the
Griffin Inn in Fletching, East Sussex. This was to celebrate the FD’s fiftieth birthday
on 8 January 2017.
th
th
30 His bank statement shows the Claimant paid Core Law £210 on 5 June 2017.
There is no entry for payment to the Griffin Inn, but the FD’s 50 birthday party
th
went ahead on 14 January 2017.
th
31 The FD’s signed will was left openly in the office she shared with the Claimant and
it is likely he studied it closely.

32 The FD’s will makes it abundantly clear that the Claimant;

 had no financial stake in Nutley Place and that the FD’s 100% interest would
pass to her children on her death;

 was to be a co-guardian of the FD’s children and, following her death, and could
remain rent free in Nutley Place for (a) a maximum of four years - or (b) the
youngest children reaching the age of 18; whichever was the earlier;

 Would have to move out immediately – with no compensation - if he began to
cohabit with a new partner or brought other people to live in Nutley Place .
12
33 Paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s REPLY in these proceedings, dated 30th July 2019,
states:

“The Claimant specifically denies knowledge of, or being consulted about,
any will which the First Defendant may have executed”.

The fact that this denial is demonstrably untrue is indicative of the Claimant’s mens
rea. He could not have forgotten. The Defendant seeks disclosure of his wills.

34 The FD will apply to the Court for a Production Order on Core Law and will
submit her own will for fingerprinting and other forensic examination.
Page5

Bates Number Bates No094
11
The FD’s half share would have amounted to £437,000
12 Which includes his natural children