John Rankin Cornforth, the millionaire who gave $ 240,000 to street sweeper Simon Denyer.
A millionaire what gave $ 240,000 to a street cleaner almost a decade ago now he is asking to pay him back, and with interest. The reasons for the decision and a ruling that divides public opinion.
John Rankin Cornforth he inherited millions when his rich father died and gave the local street sweeper simone negatore about three parts of the sum between 2012 and 2014, sometime after they got closer.
However, time ran out when all was rosy between these friends United Kingdomand now he’s suing his old friend to get that money back.
friends and money
The two characters in this story crossed by money had become friends and go out drinking together.
Loan or gift? John Rankin Cornforth is suing his former scavenger friend.
Indeed the first contact among these occurred at a New Year’s party and gave it to a friend of his in financial difficulties about $ 90,000 to cover the costs of a messy divorce.
But that wasn’t the only outlay, as he paid out more two years later US $ 150,000 so that he can pay the mortgage on his apartment.
But Corforth, 62, now he is suing his former friend in an attempt to make him pay the full “huge sum”, the spreads Mirror.
But Denyer, who had been employed as a street sweeper by the Guildford Council, is ready to fight: he claims that most of the money was a “gift” from his wealthy friend.
Lawyers and pending lawsuit
Chris HowittDenyer’s legal representative explained to the city county court that the men first met at a party in 1979 and had become “drinking buddies and good friends.”
Furthermore, he stated that they both came from wealthy families: Denyer was the son of the former mayor of Elmbridgewhile Cornforth’s father was described in court as “a rich man who has generously supported him throughout his life”.
Simon Denyer states that part of the $ 240,000 was a gift.
Life issues, however, caused family fortunes to take completely opposite directions in 2012. Cornforth had he inherited millions in cash and stock from his fatherwhile Denyer was street cleaning for the municipality and he was facing a bad divorce with his ex-wife Tracy.
According to British media, both men agree that Cornforth delivered Denyer $ 31,000 to cover your divorce attorney fees in 2012, others US $ 60,000 to pay his ex in severance pay in 2013 and US $ 150,000 set aside for the mortgage on his apartment. in the town of Shalford, Surrey, in 2014.
Gift, loan and conflict
Denyer acknowledges that the divorce money was a loan and that he had to pay it back, but says his friend paid off the mortgage as “a gift”.
He also claims that there was no interest to be paid on the loans made nearly ten years ago.
Cornforth in return he insists that all the money for his friend was in the form of loans who is now asking to be paid.
But given the passage of time and inflation, you want interest on loans of divorce a 1% above the Bank’s base rate England for the past decade.
Upon presentation of the evidence, Cornforth confided to Judge Stephen Hellman that $ 240,000 “is not a large sum” to him, but that he “trusted” that his friend would pay him back.
Part of the disputed money went to the mortgage on the garbage man’s property.
Standing across the street, his friend’s lawyer replied, “For Denyer, who is a street sweeper, it’s a huge sum,” and then claimed that Cornforth he knew Denyer couldn’t pay him back.
“He was in serious financial trouble. This was a gift, right? Because he was your friend, right?” I ask. Cornforth responded energetically and forcefully: “No!”
David Broungera Cornforth attorney explained that their case is that the two men agreed that all the money was loans and would be repaid within ten years, because Denyer hoped that at that point he would receive an inheritance.
But Howitt argued that Cornforth didn’t “no written record” or “documentary evidence” to prove that the money given was loans, except for a reference in Denyer’s divorce papers regarding the sum.
The millionaire wants the money back with interest.
Cornforth, for his part, told the judge that he had not asked for any written evidence that he had made the loans to his friend “because he trusted him.”
While the hearing continues and the sentence is awaited, there is still a deeply felt sentence. And for others in courts and tribunals: “When there is money in between there is no friendship value”. At least in this case it is true.
Source: Clarin
