role: user

text: pull messages from Lisa


role: assistant

text:
New from Lisa (2026-02-26 09:35):

> “His view is that while we could always have entered into a postnuptial agreement between us, the trust itself wouldn’t have been part of that — the corpus and structure are fixed, and you’re not a beneficiary. Any agreement would have been a contractual arrangement between us, not a modification of the trust.”


text: i want to reply with - ok - but what about my specific questions?  when he suggested a life insurance policy, for example, why did he omit the possibility of a prenup?


text:
```text
Thank you — I understand the trust itself can’t be modified and wouldn’t have been part of any agreement.

My question is narrower: when we asked how to address the imbalance and he suggested things like a life insurance backstop, why didn’t he also mention a postnuptial agreement (i.e., a contractual arrangement between us) as a possible tool?

Was there a specific reason he thought it was inadvisable / unlikely to hold up / not appropriate, or did it just not come up?
```


text: send it!


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as written.


text: pull please


text:
New from Lisa (2026-02-26 09:42):

> “His response as I understood it was that a postnuptial agreement between us would have been a marital contract issue and not a trust matter, so it wouldn’t have been something for him to advise on in his role as trust counsel.”


text: can you answer - yes - but he did weigh-in on the insurance.  was there a specific legal reason he didn't mention postnup or did it simply not come up?


text:
```text
That makes sense in general.

But just to reconcile it: he did weigh in on the life insurance idea (which also seems like a marital-contract / planning tool rather than a trust modification).

So was there any specific legal reason he avoided mentioning a postnup (inadvisable, unenforceable, etc.), or did it simply not come up in the conversation?
```


text: send it