role: user

text: in the mediation, how do questions work?  do we take turns?


role: assistant

text:
Usually, the mediator controls the flow.

Most common pattern:
1. mediator opens and explains ground rules
2. each side gives a brief opening or summary
3. mediator asks questions
4. discussion happens either:
   - together in one room, or
   - separately in caucus / shuttle style
5. the mediator decides when to switch between issues, questions, and private sessions

So no, it’s usually not a rigid `your turn / her turn / your turn` format.

Practically:
- sometimes you speak directly
- sometimes you answer only the mediator
- sometimes the mediator carries questions back and forth
- sometimes you ask the mediator to put a question to Lisa instead of asking it yourself

The important thing is:
- you do not need to force every question in immediately
- you can ask the mediator to hold a point and come back to it
- if the conversation gets sloppy, you can say:
  - `I want to make sure this specific question gets answered.`

So for you, the best approach is:
- bring a short prioritized list
- let the mediator run the room
- but keep your top 3 questions visible so they don’t get lost

For your session, I’d prioritize:
1. `Are we evaluating true fairness, not just legal minimums?`
2. `Do we agree retirement security is a core issue?`
3. `Does Lisa agree the marriage was structured around the expectation that her inheritance would provide shared long-term security?`

If you want, I can turn that into a one-page `what to say / when to press / when to let the mediator carry it` sheet.


text: i don't think we need to worry about #2.  she's already said as much, right?


text:
Yes. I think that’s right.

You probably do **not** need to spend scarce opening energy proving `retirement security is a core issue`, because Lisa has already said that.

The strongest support is:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:516`
```text
I understand that retirement security is the core issue you’re focused on, and I do take that seriously.
```

Also:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:523`
```text
I’m not opposed to thinking about this as more than just short-term transitional support. I understand your point about long-term security, and I agree that the way our finances were structured during the marriage matters.
```

So yes:
- `#2` is mostly already in the bag
- you can treat it as background agreement unless she backtracks in the room

That means your live priorities are probably closer to:

1. `fairness, not just legal minimums`
2. `did we structure the marriage around the expectation that the inheritance would provide shared long-term security?`
3. `if we are going concrete, are we doing that symmetrically?`

That’s tighter.


text: what will be the push back?


text:
Most likely pushback:

1. `Fairness has to be concrete`
- She’ll say:
  - `I’m not rejecting fairness`
  - `I need to know what that means numerically`
- Translation:
  - don’t ask me to endorse a principle without attaching it to structure and numbers

2. `Short-term affordability`
- She’ll say:
  - house
  - Juno
  - Kay
  - current expenses
  - zero savings / debt pressure
- Translation:
  - even if long-term security is a goal, the near-term has to be manageable

3. `Open-ended obligation`
- She’ll resist anything that sounds like:
  - indefinite percentage forever
  - blank check
  - no adjustment if your situation improves
- Translation:
  - structure risk is one of her core fears

4. `Work / earning capacity`
- She may say:
  - fairness has to account for what you can realistically earn
- Translation:
  - she will try to reduce the size of the gap by imputing some future income to you

5. `The trust is separate`
- Even if not said aggressively, it may appear in the room as:
  - `I’m not saying Karl gets the trust`
- Translation:
  - she will want to protect principal and possibly frame the income as more hers than shared

6. `I never agreed to that exact framing`
- On the inheritance-as-shared-retirement question, if pressed, she may say:
  - `I agree the structure matters`
  - but `I don’t agree we explicitly shared that understanding the way you’re phrasing it`
- Translation:
  - she may concede the atmosphere but resist the sharp formulation

Those are the main ones.

The most important thing is that none of these are fatal if you stay organized.

Your best responses are:

- to `fairness has to be concrete`
  - `Agreed. But first we need the fairness frame, then we can test it concretely.`

- to `short-term affordability`
  - `That’s real, but it is a solvable structure question. It is not the whole fairness question.`

- to `open-ended obligation`
  - `If that is the concern, then we should solve it with structure, not by denying the fairness principle.`

- to `work`
  - `Work matters, but only realistically, and it does not erase the long-term security problem.`

- to `trust is separate`
  - `I’m not claiming principal. I’m talking about how the allowance stream was actually used and relied on.`

- to `I never agreed to that exact framing`
  - `Then what alternative understanding explains how we actually structured our financial lives?`

That’s the pushback map.


text: ok - so when they ask me for my ask, what do i say?


text:
Say this:

```text
My ask is that we work from what is truly fair, not just from what the law might technically allow, and that we evaluate that fairness based on the actual facts of our marriage.

More concretely, my position is that this was a long, integrated marriage in which we structured our financial lives around the expectation that Lisa’s inheritance and the income stream from it would provide our long-term security. I came out of that structure with no meaningful retirement security of my own. So my ask is for a settlement structure that fairly addresses that long-term imbalance and leaves me with real retirement security, not just short-term support.
```

If they push for `ok but what does that mean in dollars / structure?`, then say:

```text
At the high level, I think fairness points to treating the retirement income we expected during the marriage as something that should have been shared. I’m open to different structures that can accomplish that, but I am not open to an outcome that leaves me financially exposed after a twenty-year marriage that was built the way ours was.
```

That gives you:
- principle first
- then structure
- without leading with `50%` in the first sentence

If you want the sharper version that includes `50%`, I can give you that too.


text: it seems like Lisa is demanding dollars.


text:
Yes.

In the texts, Lisa repeatedly asked for a dollarized target, not just principle.

Specifically, she asked for:
- `what level of assets you would need by then` in `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:525`
- `what level of income or assets that would require` in `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:537`
- `what kind of annual income in retirement` or `what level of assets would feel secure to you at 67` in `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:547`
- the `actual calculations behind` `30%` and life insurance in `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:593`
- a `cost breakdown` in `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:603`

So yes: she is demanding numbers.

That means in mediation, you should expect:
- principle first
- then a push for dollars

Clean way to handle it:
1. `My ask is a fair long-term retirement outcome grounded in the facts of the marriage.`
2. `As a fairness anchor, I believe that points to 50% of the retirement income we expected to share.`
3. `Before mediation, I offered 30% as a discounted settlement position to avoid a harder fight.`
4. `I’m open to different structures, but not to an outcome that leaves me without real retirement security.`

That gives them:
- the principle
- the anchor
- the history of the `30%`
- and the structure flexibility

If you want, I can turn that into a 20-second spoken answer.


text: you think i should mention the 30%?


text:
Not first.

I would mention `50%` before `30%`.

Reason:
- `50%` is your fairness anchor
- `30%` was a discounted pre-mediation concession
- if you lead with `30%`, you weaken your own frame immediately

So the order should be:

1. fairness
2. why fairness points to `50%`
3. only then, if useful, explain that `30%` was an earlier attempt to settle below that

Something like:

```text
If you want my actual fairness position, I believe the equitable starting point is 50% of the retirement income we understood would be shared during the marriage. Before mediation, I floated 30% as a discounted attempt to resolve this informally, but that was not my view of the full fair outcome.
```

That is the right sequencing.

So:
- `Should you mention 30%?` Yes, probably at some point.
- `Should you lead with it?` No.


text: every lawyer i talk to says an unbounded flat % is unreasonable.  can you help me understand why.


text:
Usually because lawyers hear `unbounded flat %` as `indefinite profit-sharing`, not `support tied to need`.

Why they balk in Missouri:

1. It’s not pegged to a present need
- Missouri maintenance is based on `reasonable needs`, ability to work, standard of living, assets, duration, and the payor’s ability to meet both parties’ needs.
- Statute: `§ 452.335`
  https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335

2. It has no natural stopping logic
- A flat `%` of distributions forever can keep paying even if:
  - your need drops
  - your income rises
  - her income changes
  - circumstances materially change
- Lawyers prefer something with bounds: term, review date, floor/cap, retirement milestone, asset target, etc.

3. It can look like sharing her separate-property income indefinitely
- Even if that is morally your fairness case, lawyers know a court may see it as too close to permanent participation in her separate-income stream rather than maintenance calibrated to current facts.

4. It doesn’t distinguish downside from upside
- If distributions increase, your payment increases automatically whether your need changed or not.
- That feels overbroad to lawyers.

5. Missouri maintenance law is built around modifiability / changed circumstances
- Unless otherwise agreed, maintenance can be modified on substantial continuing changed circumstances, and usually terminates on death/remarriage.
- Statute: `§ 452.370`
  https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370
- An unbounded `%` tries to solve future uncertainty with a blunt automatic rule instead of review.

So the legal-instinct reaction is:
- `50% may be your fairness anchor`
- but `flat % forever` is a rough vehicle for implementing it

That does **not** mean your fairness theory is wrong.
It means lawyers want it translated into a more defensible structure, like:
- `%` with a floor/cap
- `%` to age `67`
- `%` until asset target
- hybrid support + equalization
- review triggers for major income changes

So the real distinction is:

- `fairness anchor`: maybe `50%`
- `implementation mechanism`: lawyers think an unbounded flat `%` is too crude

If you want, I can sketch 3 bounded structures that preserve your fairness theory without the “unbounded percentage” problem.


text: in MO maintenance is based on need.  but why is it limited to my need not both needs?


text:
Because Missouri maintenance is not designed as a general balancing of both spouses’ post-divorce needs. It’s designed as a remedy for the spouse seeking maintenance.

Under `§ 452.335`, the threshold question is whether the spouse seeking maintenance:
- lacks sufficient property to meet `his or her reasonable needs`, and
- cannot support `himself or herself` through appropriate employment.
Source: `RSMo 452.335`
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335

Then, in setting amount/duration, the court considers both sides, including:
- your resources and needs,
- her ability to meet `her needs while meeting yours`,
- standard of living,
- duration of marriage, etc.
Same source: `RSMo 452.335`

So:
- `your need` is the basis for entitlement
- `her need` matters as a limit on ability to pay
- but the statute is not asking: `how do we equalize both spouses’ needs fairly?`

That’s why it feels one-sided. The legal structure is asymmetric on purpose.

Also, on modification, Missouri looks at `all financial resources of both parties`, but again that is about whether the maintenance terms have become unreasonable, not a free-form fairness rebalance.
Source: `RSMo 452.370`
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370

So the clean distinction is:

- `Missouri maintenance law`:
  - recipient’s unmet reasonable needs first
  - payor’s needs as a constraint
- `your mediation fairness theory`:
  - both parties’ long-term needs should be examined symmetrically

That’s a real difference. And it’s exactly why mediation matters here: it lets you argue for a broader fairness model than the statute’s narrow maintenance framework.

If you want, I can turn that into a 3-sentence mediation line.


text: right - but that's directly relying on MO law not general fairness.


text:
Yes. Exactly.

That asymmetry is a feature of Missouri maintenance law, not a feature of general fairness.

Missouri asks:
- `what does the recipient need?`
- `can the payor meet that while meeting her own needs?`

That is a legal support framework.
It is not a neutral fairness framework.

A genuine fairness inquiry would ask:
- what does each person need?
- what resources exist?
- what expectations shaped the marriage?
- what outcome is fair given the whole picture?

So yes:
- if someone says `only Karl’s need matters, and Lisa’s only as a limit`
- that is not a fairness proposition
- that is a Missouri-maintenance proposition

That is a very important distinction for mediation.

Clean way to say it:

```text
If we were only asking what Missouri maintenance law might do, then the analysis would focus asymmetrically on my unmet needs and Lisa’s ability to pay. But that is a legal framework, not a full fairness framework. If this mediation is really about what is fair, then both parties’ long-term needs and circumstances have to be part of the analysis.
```

That’s the point cleanly stated.


text: what did Lisa say about fairness vs. legal limit?


text:
The cleanest Lisa statement is:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
```text
I want to be clear about where I’m coming from, because I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say. I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair to everyone involved, including me and Juno, not just what feels secure from your side.
```

And she immediately paired that with:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:573`
```text
To do that, I need to understand what you’re actually asking for in concrete terms...
```

Earlier, she also said she wanted legal advice to understand what was fair:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:376`
```text
...I would have wanted to get legal advice first so that I understood what was fair and what the implications were.
```

So her position was basically:

- she did **not** want to present herself as hiding behind legal minimums
- she said she wanted to understand what was **actually fair**
- but she also wanted legal context and concrete numbers before committing to a fairness view

That’s the tension in her position.


text: ok.  so i definitely need to call attention to genuine fairness and not  limited to what MO law provides.


text:
Yes.

That is one of your most important framing moves.

Because otherwise the conversation can quietly collapse into:
- `what would Missouri probably do?`
- `what is the narrowest maintenance logic?`
- `what is Karl’s unmet need under a support statute?`

And that is not your actual case.

Your actual case is:
- long marriage
- integrated finances
- shared retirement expectation
- no separate retirement buildup
- trust-backed income on her side
- exposure on your side

That is a broader fairness case than Missouri’s maintenance formula.

So yes:
- you should call attention to genuine fairness
- and explicitly distinguish it from the narrower question of what Missouri law might provide

Clean version:

```text
I want to be clear that I’m asking this mediation to focus on genuine fairness, not just on the narrower question of what Missouri maintenance law might provide. Missouri law is one legal backdrop, but it is not the whole measure of what is fair here. The fairness question is broader: how to reach a fair long-term outcome given the actual structure of this marriage and what each of us is left with now.
```

That is a very important line for you.


text: i think the second most important issue is the question of whether we structured all our financial decisions around using Lisa's inheritance for retirement.


text:
Yes. I think that’s right.

Priority order looks like:

1. `This mediation should be about genuine fairness, not just the narrower Missouri-law floor.`
2. `Did we structure our financial lives around the shared expectation that Lisa’s inheritance would provide our retirement security?`

That second issue matters because it explains:
- why you did not build separate retirement security
- why the trust income matters morally, not just legally
- why Snow Day and other financial decisions look the way they do
- why fairness points where it does

So yes, once the fairness frame is established, that is the next key question.

A clean way to sequence it is:

```text
If we are going to evaluate this on the basis of genuine fairness, then the next question is whether our major financial decisions during the marriage were made with the shared expectation that Lisa’s inheritance would provide our long-term retirement security. I believe they were. If that is disputed, then I think we need to address that directly, because it is central to understanding what a fair outcome looks like.
```

That is clean and strong.


text: so, Lisa probably won't be coming with her own numbers if MO doesn't require them.


text:
Probably not in a fully developed way, no.

If she or her lawyer drift back toward a Missouri-maintenance frame, then the likely pattern is:

- detailed scrutiny of your need
- broad references to her obligations
- but not a symmetrical presentation of her own retirement target / needs / long-term security model

Because under that legal frame:
- your need is the entitlement question
- her needs mostly matter as a constraint

So yes, if the room defaults to Missouri logic, she may not come with:
- a full retirement-security target for herself
- a real bilateral fairness model
- a detailed `here is what I need long-term` presentation

She may come with:
- short-term cash-flow concerns
- trust-is-separate posture
- ability-to-pay style constraints
- and maybe a rough affordability narrative

That is exactly why your framing matters.

If you successfully establish:
- `we are evaluating genuine fairness, not just the Missouri maintenance floor`

then you have a strong basis to say:
- `fine, then both sides’ long-term needs and numbers belong in the analysis`

So yes:
- if the room stays legal, she may not bring symmetrical numbers
- if the room shifts to fairness, she should have to

That’s the fork.


text: how do you suppose she'll determine that beforehand?