Page 97 - Combined file Solheim

CLAIM NO F00BN141
FIRST DEFENDANT’S POSITION STATEMENT
For hearing on 18 August 2020
th
 Neither was it a “contribution towards property”. It was parked in a black
hole.

 the Claimant has stated that the account was blocked by the FD’s ex-husband
[APMS]. This is true, but it was of no effect because the process used by the
Claimant meant that deposit had been blocked from the outset.

 It was a loan that never was. It is beyond belief that anyone would make a
loan or investment of eight times his or her net annual salary, with not a shred
of documentation and would remain schtum when a third party threatened to
steal it. He wanted it off his books.

6. UNWILLINGNESS TO STATE WHETHER THE £500,000 WAS A LOAN OR A GIFT

49 The McK narrative sets out details of the Claimant’s repeated - and often petulant
or angry - refusal to discuss anything to do with the £500,000 and especially
whether it was a loan or a gift. There was never any mention of “contributions
towards property”. That came later when he realised that TOLATA gave him a
much better chance of grabbing the £500,000 back than a simple, totally
undocumented loan.

50 The recorded conversation of 6 March 2018 is typical of others that took place
th
with the Claimant;
20
Claimant “I don’t want to - I might just write a letter to the Judge and say I'm not
prepared to, to, to give out my financial – WHO tells me to give out my
financial situation?”

FD “They are not asking for it – I'm just going to counter argue that he has plucked
21
these figures out of the sky and they’re wrong”

Claimant “I can give you some ball figures, but you know the figures”

FD “Yeah but if you could just write it for me”

Claimant “But I do NOT want to be mentioned in that FUCKING COURT because IT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH ME”

51 The chronology leading up to the Final Hearing (on 21st May 2018) of the FDs
divorce is explained in McKApp paragraphs 108 et seq. Essentially, the Claimant:

 Knew it was in his own interest to confirm [or claim] the £500,000 was a loan
because this made it less likely that APMS could steal it, or use it as an argument
to have his lifetime maintenance reduced;

 Knew that the FD would be willing to give back the £500,000 and sign a loan
agreement : he became angry and refused to discuss it;
22
 Repeatedly refused to attend the Final Hearing as a witness. His final excuse
was because he had to “stay home to look after the dog”. Page8

20 Attend court
21 APMS the FD’s ex-husband
Bates Number Bates No097
Even though she believed, at all times, the £500,000 had been a gift. Her primary objective was to prevent APMS removing
22
it has he had done years earlier when he drained the feeder account.