role: user

text:
ok - some things to add - my understanding is that your allowance payments are closer to $17k with an additional $3k allocated to my mom.

but regardless, in the grand scheme of things my mom's total care is estimated to be around $250k and i thought both you and Juno had agreed to pay that.  and again, that is not a large sum.


role: assistant

text:
Draft reply to Lisa (preview only):

```text
Lisa — agreed we should model Mom explicitly and not assume it fits neatly inside any percentage.

My understanding is that the trust allowance/disbursements are closer to about $17k/month, and separately there has been about $3k/month allocated toward Mom. If the right modeling number is $12k/month (e.g., net of something), I’m fine using that; I just want us to use the real cash flow and not assume an increase.

Also, I thought you and Juno had agreed we would cover Mom’s care, and we’d estimated the total remaining out-of-pocket cost on the order of ~$250k. That’s meaningful, but finite. I’d like us to treat that as a shared obligation in the overall model (and account for it before splitting savings), rather than assume it has to fit neatly inside the 30% framework.
```

If you want this sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: an additional $3k to mom, for a total of $20k.


text:
Preview (dry-run) ready:

```text
Lisa — agreed we should model Mom explicitly and not assume it fits neatly inside any percentage.

My understanding is that the trust allowance/disbursements are closer to about $17k/month, plus an additional ~$3k/month allocated toward Mom (so roughly $20k/month total). If the right modeling number is $12k/month (e.g., net of something), I’m fine using that; I just want us to use the real cash flow and not assume an increase.

Also, I thought you and Juno had agreed we would cover Mom’s care, and we’d estimated the total remaining out-of-pocket cost on the order of ~$250k. That’s meaningful, but finite. I’d like us to treat that as a shared obligation in the overall model (and account for it before splitting savings), rather than assume it has to fit neatly inside the 30% framework.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: no - Lisa and Juno decided together, without me, to use the trust funds for my mom.


text:
Updated draft with your correction:

```text
Lisa — agreed we should model Mom explicitly and not assume it fits neatly inside any percentage.

My understanding is the trust disbursements are closer to about $17k/mo, plus an additional ~$3k/mo allocated toward Mom (so roughly $20k/mo total). If the right modeling number is $12k/mo (net of something), I’m fine using that — I just want us to be consistent about gross vs net and not assume an increase.

Also, as I understand it, you and Juno decided together to use trust funds for Mom (I wasn’t part of that decision), and I appreciate it. In the grand scheme, we’ve estimated the remaining out-of-pocket cost for Mom’s care at around ~$250k total. I’d like us to treat Mom’s care as a finite, explicitly budgeted obligation in the model (accounted for before splitting savings), rather than something that has to fit neatly inside the 30% framework.
```


text: send it.


text:
Preview (dry-run) ready. Exact text:

```text
Lisa — agreed we should model Mom explicitly and not assume it fits neatly inside any percentage.

My understanding is the trust disbursements are closer to about $17k/mo, plus an additional ~$3k/mo allocated toward Mom (so roughly $20k/mo total). If the right modeling number is $12k/mo (net of something), I’m fine using that — I just want us to be consistent about gross vs net and not assume an increase.

Also, as I understand it, you and Juno decided together to use trust funds for Mom (I wasn’t part of that decision), and I appreciate it. In the grand scheme, we’ve estimated the remaining out-of-pocket cost for Mom’s care at around ~$250k total. I’d like us to treat Mom’s care as a finite, explicitly budgeted obligation in the model (accounted for before splitting savings), rather than something that has to fit neatly inside the 30% framework.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: remove the "accounted for before splitting savings"


text:
Preview (dry-run) updated:

```text
Lisa — agreed we should model Mom explicitly and not assume it fits neatly inside any percentage.

My understanding is the trust disbursements are closer to about $17k/mo, plus an additional ~$3k/mo allocated toward Mom (so roughly $20k/mo total). If the right modeling number is $12k/mo (net of something), I’m fine using that — I just want us to be consistent about gross vs net and not assume an increase.

Also, as I understand it, you and Juno decided together to use trust funds for Mom (I wasn’t part of that decision), and I appreciate it. In the grand scheme, we’ve estimated the remaining out-of-pocket cost for Mom’s care at around ~$250k total. I’d like us to treat Mom’s care as a finite, explicitly budgeted obligation in the model, rather than something that has to fit neatly inside the 30% framework.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: send exactly this


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as previewed.


text: pull messages!


text:
Latest from Lisa:

```text
2026-02-24 18:25  Lisa: To make sure we’re modeling from the same baseline, here are the numbers as I understand them:

• Gross trust disbursement: approximately $19,500 per month.
• House value: approximately $350,000, with roughly $50,000 remaining on the mortgage, leaving about $300,000 in equity.
• Savings: approximately $65,000.
• Non-mortgage debts (including renovation costs): approximately $75,000.

I think it’s important that any structure we discuss — whether related to asset division, your mom’s remaining care costs, or ongoing support — be modeled against these full numbers so we’re working from a consistent financial picture.
```


text: i'd like to say something like "i entirely agree.  i suggest that we apply the $3k toward my mom and then split the remaining cost 70/30"


text:
```text
Lisa — I entirely agree. Thank you for laying out the baseline numbers; I think it’s important we model from a consistent full picture.

On Mom, one concrete suggestion: allocate $3,000/month of the gross disbursement toward her $5,500/month assisted living, and then split the remaining $2,500/month 70/30 (consistent with the 70/30 framework). In the bigger picture, we’ve estimated the remaining total cost on the order of ~$250k, so it’s meaningful but finite, and I think the model should treat it explicitly.
```

Want me to prep this for sending (dry-run preview first)?


text: i'd like to say "the $3,000" because that is explicitly what the ask to the lawyers was.


text:
Preview (dry-run) ready:

```text
Lisa — I entirely agree. Thank you for laying out the baseline numbers; I think it’s important we model from a consistent full picture.

On Mom, one concrete suggestion: allocate the $3,000/month toward her $5,500/month assisted living, and then split the remaining $2,500/month 70/30 (consistent with the 70/30 framework). In the bigger picture, we’ve estimated the remaining total cost on the order of ~$250k, so it’s meaningful but finite, and I think the model should treat it explicitly.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: pull messages


text:
Latest from Lisa:

```text
2026-02-24 18:39  Lisa: I appreciate you thinking through a concrete structure for your mom’s care and laying it out clearly. I agree that it should be modeled explicitly and not left vague.

Rather than trying to refine percentages over email, I think this is exactly the kind of piece that counsel can help us model properly alongside the full asset/debt picture and the overall support structure. I want to make sure whatever we land on is coherent when everything is viewed together.

In general, I’m feeling good about the direction of the conversation and the fact that we’re both trying to think in structured terms. Let’s have counsel run the numbers and help us shape something sustainable and fair.
```


text: what do we say?


text:
```text
Lisa — agreed. Thank you. I’m glad this is feeling more structured and constructive.

I’ll move forward with Jennifer on my side and ask her to start modeling an integrated picture (assets/debts, Mom’s care, interim expenses, and the longer-term support/equalization structure) using the baseline numbers you shared.

Once you’ve retained counsel, we can have them connect and set up the next step in the collaborative process.
```


text: send it!


text:
Sent to Lisa (+1 314 737 2144):

> Lisa — agreed. Thank you. I’m glad this is feeling more structured and constructive.
>
> I’ll move forward with Jennifer on my side and ask her to start modeling an integrated picture (assets/debts, Mom’s care, interim expenses, and the longer-term support/equalization structure) using the baseline numbers you shared.
>
> Once you’ve retained counsel, we can have them connect and set up the next step in the collaborative process.


text: pull messages.


text:
Latest with Lisa:

- 2026-02-24 6:51 PM PT (Lisa): “I have an appointment scheduled with Susan Amato on 3/5 and will likely retain her at that point. If there’s anything specific you think would be helpful for counsel to have in advance so we can keep this efficient and avoid unnecessary legal blahblah, feel free to let me know.”
- 2026-02-24 6:44 PM PT (You): “Lisa — agreed. Thank you… I’ll move forward with Jennifer… Once you’ve retained counsel, we can have them connect…”


text: i'd like to reiterate - the best way to cut through the legal mumbo jumbo is a simple 30% split.  otherwise it's going to get crazy, fast.


text:
Here’s a tight reply you can send to Lisa:

Lisa — that makes sense. To keep this efficient and avoid a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, I’d like counsel to model a simple long-term framework as the starting point: a 30% split of your gross trust disbursement stream to me (plus a life-insurance backstop). I’m not asking you to agree to it over text; I just think if we don’t start with a clean anchor like this, things will get complicated and expensive fast. If you’re open, please share that with Susan ahead of your 3/5 appointment, and I’ll send the same to Jennifer.

Want me to send exactly that as a text?