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 or moving assets around inside the trust.

For most of our marriage, I (and I think we) assumed the inheritance would function like something we could plan around together long-term. The way it’s actually structured was a surprise, and we simply didn’t plan for it. 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 conservative as a starting point: it leaves you and Juno with 70%, and it’s materially less than half. I’m not trying to “win” anything here; I’m trying to set something up that’s simple, defensible, and sustainable.

I also think there’s a practical cost angle: if we don’t start with a straightforward structure, there’s a real risk we end up spending a lot of legal time negotiating interim support and a longer-term arrangement anyway, and the eventual negotiated outcome could end up more expensive and less predictable than a clean 30% formula. I’d rather aim for something settlement-minded up front and reduce friction and fees.

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.