Lisa — happy to share the thinking behind the 30% + life insurance idea, so you know where I’m coming from.

The big constraint is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t solve this by “splitting” the corpus.

For most of our marriage, I assumed the inheritance would function like something we could both plan around long-term. Because of that, I didn’t build retirement savings of my own, and at 56 I have no meaningful retirement.

So I’m looking for a clean, predictable way to equalize long-term security without touching the corpus. A percentage of the allowance stream is the only lever that actually moves.

30% is intentionally simple and moderate: it leaves you and Juno with 70%, and it’s materially less than half.

The life insurance piece is just a backstop so that if something unexpected interrupts that allowance stream, I’m not suddenly without support.

If the concept feels directionally reasonable, I’d love for us to hand it to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of time and legal expense.