role: user

text: remind me - what is reasonable to ask?


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: from Lisa?


role: assistant

text:
Yes. From Lisa, the reasonable ask is not "make me whole in every theoretical sense." It is: leave this marriage with a durable floor under housing, healthcare, and retirement so you do not end up structurally insecure after a 20+ year integrated partnership.

Under Missouri’s maintenance statute, the real questions are whether you have enough property to meet your reasonable needs, whether you can support yourself appropriately, and then factors like the marital standard of living, duration of the marriage, each side’s assets and earning capacity, your age/condition, and Lisa’s ability to pay. Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).

A reasonable settlement ask from Lisa usually looks like some mix of:
- `Monthly support` that gives you a reliable income floor, at least through retirement age and possibly beyond.
- `Retirement funding` in the form of a lump sum or extra asset allocation on your side.
- `Bridge support` for housing and health insurance until Medicare and full retirement.
- `Business/property equalization` so you are not left asset-light while the marriage’s economic structure stays mostly on her side.

The clean way to say it is: "I am not asking for a punitive result. I am asking for a settlement that gives me real retirement security and prevents a collapse in basic long-term stability."

If you want, I can turn that into 3 concrete asks for Sarah: conservative, realistic, and stretch.


text: sure.


text:
Yes. If the question is "what is reasonable to ask from Lisa," I’d frame it for Sarah in three layers:

- Conservative: a `basic stability` ask. Think roughly `\$4,000-\$5,000/month` from Lisa, at least through age `67`, focused on housing, healthcare, and avoiding an economic cliff.
- Realistic: a `stability + retirement bridge` ask. Think roughly `\$5,500-\$7,000/month` and/or an additional `\$200,000-\$400,000` in assets or equalization earmarked for retirement security.
- Stretch: a `true long-term security` ask. Think long-duration maintenance tied to her real cash flow, or a much larger equalization payment in the high six figures, so you are not left asset-poor after a 20+ year marriage.

Why that framing is reasonable: Missouri maintenance turns on whether you lack enough property to meet your reasonable needs, whether you can support yourself appropriately, and then factors like the marriage length, standard of living, each side’s assets/income, your age, and Lisa’s ability to pay. That is why the clean ask is not "pay me for everything I lost," but "leave me with a durable floor and a plausible retirement path." Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).

As a negotiation frame, I would not start by subtracting your own SSA from what you ask Lisa for, because that benefit would likely have existed either way. I’d treat SSA as your later baseline, and ask Lisa to cover the part needed to keep you out of long-term insecurity.

If you want, I can turn those three into a short script for your call with Sarah: one sentence each, clean and lawyer-ready.


text: i'm terribly worried about my retirement.  how can that be salvaged?


text:
Yes, but not by investment magic alone. The salvage path is to build retirement out of `4` layers at once:

- `Settlement support`: this is the biggest lever. In Missouri, maintenance turns on whether you have enough property to meet reasonable needs, whether you can support yourself appropriately, and factors like marriage length, standard of living, your age, assets, and Lisa’s ability to pay. That is the argument for a real retirement bridge, not a token payment. Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).
- `Your own SSA`: from the statement you showed me, your estimate at age `67` is about `$2,184/month`. That is a base, but not a full solution.
- `Possible ex-spouse SSA rights`: because the marriage lasted more than `10` years, you may be able to claim on Lisa’s record. A divorced-spouse benefit is generally tied to `one-half` of the ex-spouse’s primary insurance amount, and if you qualify for both your own and an ex-spouse benefit, you get the higher combined amount, not both stacked. Source: [SSA FAQ](https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-02035.html), [20 CFR 404.333](https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0333.htm), [SSA filing rules](https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/claiming.html). Inference: since your own FRA estimate is `$2,184`, Lisa’s FRA benefit would likely need to be above about `$4,368/month` before a divorced-spouse retirement top-up helps.
- `Survivor protection`: this may matter more than the divorced-spouse benefit. If Lisa dies first, a surviving divorced spouse may be eligible based on her record; SSA says surviving spouses/ex-spouses can receive `71.5%` to `100%` depending when they claim, and you can switch later between survivor and retirement benefits. Source: [SSA survivor eligibility](https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/eligibility), [SSA survivor amounts](https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/amount).
- `Late-career saving`: if you have earned income, the 2026 limits are meaningful. At age `50+`, you can generally defer up to `$32,500` into a `401(k)/403(b)/457` in 2026, and the IRA total is `$8,600` for age `50+` if eligible. Source: [IRS 2026 limits](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/401k-limit-increases-to-24500-for-2026-ira-limit-increases-to-7500).

The blunt version is this: your retirement is salvaged if the divorce settlement buys you a durable income floor and/or retirement assets, and then Social Security fills in underneath it. It is probably not salvaged by trying to invest your way out of a zero-base situation over the next decade.

For Monday with Sarah, I’d frame it this way: “My objective is to leave this marriage with enough enforceable income and retirement support that I am not exposed to long-term insecurity at retirement age.”

If you want, I can turn that into a concrete planning sheet:
1. your minimum retirement budget,
2. the monthly gap after your SSA,
3. the range Lisa would need to cover by support, assets, or both.


text: do you remember the facts of the situation?  can you summarize for me?


text: I’m pulling the legal handoff notes so the summary stays tied to what’s actually in the repo, not just conversation memory.


text:
Here’s the working fact pattern as I understand it.

- You and Lisa were married on `2005-02-25` and were together for about `21` years.
- You operated as an integrated economic partnership, not as two financially separate people.
- Marital resources were used to support the household and to build `Snow Day`, rather than to build conventional retirement savings.
- Early in the marriage, you bought about `300 BTC` with marital funds and later liquidated it to support the household and business. Your point is not later appreciation; it is that major assets were deployed into the marriage.
- A central background assumption in the marriage was that Lisa’s inheritance/trust would provide long-term security for both of you.
- Lisa has trust income/distributions, but you are not a beneficiary of the trust corpus. The practical lever is the `distribution stream`, not the principal.
- You are now `56`, have no meaningful retirement savings, and have major concern about retirement security.
- You currently have `no earned income`, and future earning capacity feels uncertain.
- Your Social Security estimate at age `67` is about `$2,184/month`, which helps but does not solve retirement on its own.
- Housing is a major issue because you expect to need to support yourself, likely with significant rent costs.
- Your core goal is not punitive. It is to avoid leaving a long marriage in `structural economic insecurity`, especially around retirement.
- The clean framing you’ve been using is: you want a durable, enforceable floor of long-term financial stability, especially retirement security, without challenging the underlying trust structure.

Process facts:

- You’re aiming for a `collaborative` divorce in Missouri/St. Louis if possible.
- Lisa had contact with `Susan Amato`, so that firm is off-limits for conflict reasons.
- You consulted with `Jennifer Rench`; she later stepped back and pointed you back to `Sarah Wittrock`.
- You’re now dealing with `Sarah Wittrock`’s office through `Maya`, and Maya offered the first reschedule slot of `Monday, March 9, 2026 at 11:00am CST`.

If you want, I can turn this into a tighter `one-page facts memo for Sarah` or a `plain-English settlement position` centered on retirement.


text:
Lisa's trust is around $5M and she receives monthly allowance payments of $19000.

we have both been effectively retired since 2022 when her mother passed away.  from 2017-2022 i have been underemloyed.  i have great trepidation about re-entering the job market.


text:
Those are important facts, and they sharpen the picture a lot.

- Lisa’s trust is about `$5M`, and her monthly allowance/distribution is about `$19,000` or roughly `$228,000/year`.
- Since Lisa’s mother died in `2022`, you and Lisa have both been effectively retired.
- You’ve been underemployed since `2017`.
- You have real concern about re-entering the job market now, both practically and emotionally.
- That means your issue is not just a short-term transition. It is a long-term retirement-security problem after a long marriage built around shared economic assumptions.

For Sarah, the clean version is:

```text
Lisa has a trust of roughly $5 million and receives about $19,000 per month in allowance distributions. Since her mother passed in 2022, we have both effectively been retired. I have been underemployed since 2017, and I have serious trepidation about re-entering the job market at this stage. Given the structure of the marriage and the way our finances operated, my central concern is how to leave this marriage with durable retirement security rather than long-term economic insecurity.
```

This helps you because it supports three points at once: `need`, `limited earning capacity`, and `Lisa’s ability to pay`.

If you want, I can now update your full fact summary and your Sarah consult sheet to include these exact numbers.


text: yes please.


text: I’m updating the core legal notes with the trust amount, the `$19,000/month` allowance, the fact that you were both effectively retired starting in `2022`, and your underemployment/job-market concern. Then I’ll verify the exact lines in the files.


text: I found the stale number in the Sarah packet: it still says about `$16.7k/month`. I’m correcting that and adding the retirement/underemployment history to both the handoff summary and the consult packet.


text: The wording is in place and reads cleanly. I’m pulling the exact line numbers so you can jump straight to the updated summary and Sarah packet.


text:
I updated both the core fact summary and the Sarah consult packet with the stronger facts you just gave me.

The handoff now records the `$5M` trust, the `$19,000/month` allowance, the fact that you were both effectively retired starting in `2022`, your underemployment since `2017`, and your concern about re-entering the job market in [HANDOFF.md](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal/HANDOFF.md:118).

The Sarah packet now says the same thing in the counsel-facing facts section, replacing the stale `$16.7k/month` figure and making the retirement-risk framing more explicit in [2026-02-28_consult_packet.md](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:22).

No tests to run here since these were doc-only edits. If you want, I can next tighten the actual spoken summary you use with Sarah into a 30-second version and a 2-minute version.


text: given these facts althogether, what can i expect to have for my retirement income when that time comes?


text: I’m doing the math in today’s dollars using your SSA estimate at `67` and a few settlement shapes, because the answer depends on whether support continues into retirement or is used to build a retirement fund first.


text: please stop obsessing about SSA.  it's not going to be a significant factor.


text: I’m reframing it the right way: ignore SSA and convert the retirement question into “what permanent monthly floor or asset-equivalent settlement would keep you safe.”


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: for almost the entirety of our marriage i was the income providing work horse.


text:
That fact changes the frame materially.

You were not a peripheral dependent spouse. You were the primary income engine for most of the marriage, then the marriage shifted into a de facto retirement structure once Lisa’s mother died in `2022`. That makes your position much stronger: your earning years were spent carrying the household and building the life together, while the durable retirement-side security ended up on Lisa’s side. Under Missouri’s maintenance statute, that goes directly to need, ability to support yourself through appropriate employment, comparative earning capacity, standard of living, duration of the marriage, age, and Lisa’s ability to pay. Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).

If we ignore SSA and think in today’s dollars, the useful translation is:

- `$4,000/month` of retirement income needs about `$1.2M` of retirement capital
- `$5,000/month` needs about `$1.5M`
- `$6,000/month` needs about `$1.8M`
- `$7,000/month` needs about `$2.1M`

Against Lisa’s current `$19,000/month` trust distribution stream, that means:

- `20%` of her stream = `$3,800/month`
- `25%` = `$4,750/month`
- `30%` = `$5,700/month`
- `35%` = `$6,650/month`

The blunt part: a pure “catch up by saving from zero before 67” plan is probably unrealistic. To build `$1.5M` by `67` over about `11` years, assuming a `4%` real return, you’d need roughly `$9,150/month` going into retirement savings. That points away from “I’ll save my way out of this” and toward `long-term maintenance`, `a large equalization payment`, or `a hybrid`.

My practical read, based on the facts you’ve given, is that a retirement outcome worth modeling is roughly `$4,750-$6,650/month` from Lisa in today’s dollars, or the asset-equivalent of that. Below about `$4,000/month` feels thin. Around `$5,000-$6,000/month` looks much closer to a real retirement floor. Above `$7,000/month` may be harder to land collaboratively unless the full asset picture supports it.

If you want, I can turn that into one clean sentence for Sarah: your `minimum`, your `reasonable target`, and your `stretch ask`.


text: she doesn't have assets to give me.


text:
Then the realistic path is `cash flow`, not buyout.

If Lisa does not have liquid assets to transfer, your retirement security has to come from a continuing share of her monthly trust distribution stream, or some other long-duration maintenance structure. That actually fits your facts better anyway: the money source is monthly, predictable, and already functioning.

In practical terms, on `$19,000/month`:

- `20%` is `$3,800/month`
- `25%` is `$4,750/month`
- `30%` is `$5,700/month`
- `35%` is `$6,650/month`

So the real question for Sarah is not “what lump sum can I get,” but “what continuing monthly floor is realistic and enforceable?” If Lisa truly has no transferable assets, then I would think in bands:

- `Bare survival`: about `$3,500-$4,000/month`
- `More realistic stability`: about `$4,500-$5,500/month`
- `Stronger retirement protection`: about `$5,500-$6,500/month`

Given what you’ve told me, I would frame your ask around `ongoing maintenance tied to the distribution stream`, with a `hard minimum monthly floor`, rather than a one-time equalization theory.

The sentence for Sarah is:

```text
If there is no meaningful asset pool available for equalization, then I need to understand what kind of ongoing maintenance structure could give me a durable monthly retirement floor out of the actual distribution stream Lisa receives.
```

If you want, I can make that more forceful and turn it into the exact wording you use on the call.


text: and this maintenance stretches until i die?


text:
Not automatically, and not by default.

In Missouri, maintenance can be ordered for an open-ended or indefinite period, but the default rule is that future statutory maintenance ends on the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient, unless the written agreement or judgment says otherwise. It is also generally modifiable if there is a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. Sources: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335), [RSMo 452.370](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370).

So the right question for Sarah is not just "can I get maintenance until I die?" It is:

- Can I get `indefinite` maintenance rather than a short step-down term?
- Can it be made `nonmodifiable`, or at least harder to cut?
- If Lisa dies first, can there be `security` behind it, like life insurance or another agreed mechanism?

Given your facts, `indefinite maintenance` is a sensible thing to discuss. But "paid no matter what until your death" is not the default statutory outcome.

If you want, I can help you phrase that as one tight question for Sarah on Monday.


text: indefinite maintenance or long term support?


text:
`Indefinite maintenance` is the legal phrase. `Long-term support` is the plain-English framing.

With Sarah, I’d use both together:

```text
My central concern is whether an indefinite maintenance structure, or some other long-term support arrangement, is realistic here given the length of the marriage, Lisa’s distribution income, my underemployment since 2017, and the fact that we have both effectively been retired since 2022.
```

That works because:

- `Indefinite maintenance` tells her the legal bucket you mean.
- `Long-term support` keeps the conversation practical and settlement-oriented.
- It avoids sounding like you are demanding one rigid structure before she has assessed the facts.

If you want the shortest version, use: `Is indefinite maintenance realistic here?`


text: but you believe it is realistic?


text:
Yes, I think `indefinite maintenance` is a realistic thing to ask Sarah about.

Not because it is guaranteed, but because your facts fit the shape of that discussion: a `21-year` marriage, you are `56`, you have no meaningful retirement savings, Lisa has a steady `\$19,000/month` distribution stream, you have been underemployed since `2017`, and both of you have effectively been retired since `2022`. Under Missouri’s maintenance factors, that is a serious long-term-support fact pattern, not a short bridge-to-next-job case. See [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).

The main caveat is this: your history as the marriage’s primary earner helps your fairness story, but it also gives the other side an argument that you still have earning capacity. So my read is:
`realistic to pursue` yes,
`guaranteed to get exactly as asked` no.

The clean question for Sarah is: “Do these facts support an indefinite maintenance position, and if not, what long-term support structure gets closest to that result?”


text: am i going to have to take a menial job?


text:
No. Missouri does not frame the question as “can he go get any job at all?” The statute asks whether you can support yourself through `appropriate employment`, and it also looks at comparative earning capacity, the marital standard of living, the duration of the marriage, your age and emotional condition, and Lisa’s ability to pay. Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335), [RSMo 452.370](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370).

The real risk is narrower: the other side may argue that some income should be imputed to you. That is different from “you must take a menial job.” On your facts, you have real arguments against that being the core assumption:
- You were the primary income-producing spouse for most of the marriage.
- You have been underemployed since `2017`.
- You and Lisa have both effectively been retired since `2022`.
- You are `56` with no meaningful retirement savings.
- Lisa has a steady `\$19,000/month` distribution stream.

So the question for Sarah is not “will I be forced into a menial job,” but “how much earning capacity is a court likely to impute to me, if any, and how do we prevent that from driving an unfair settlement?”

A clean way to say it on the call is:

```text
I am not trying to avoid work in bad faith, but I do not think it is realistic to treat me as someone who can simply step into low-wage employment and solve a long-term retirement-security problem that arose after a 21-year marriage.
```

If you want, I can turn that into a sharper version: soft, medium, or hard.


text: wait - does being primary income producer help or hurt my case?


text:
Both. But on your facts, I think it is more `helpful` than `harmful`.

It helps because it supports the fairness story:
- You were not a dependent by choice for most of the marriage.
- You spent your prime earning years carrying the household and helping build the marital life/business.
- The retirement-side security ended up concentrated in Lisa’s trust-income world, not in your own retirement accounts.

It can hurt in one narrower way:
- Missouri maintenance looks at whether you can support yourself through `appropriate employment` and at the parties’ `comparative earning capacity`.
- So the other side may argue: “He was the main earner before, therefore he still has earning capacity now.” Source: [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335).

Why I think it still nets out in your favor:
- You are `56`.
- You have been underemployed since `2017`.
- You and Lisa have both effectively been retired since `2022`.
- You do not have meaningful retirement savings.
- Lisa has a steady `\$19,000/month` distribution stream.

So the clean answer is: `primary income producer helps your equity/fairness case, but creates some imputation risk on earning capacity.` It does not cancel your support argument.

The sentence to use with Sarah is:
“Being the primary earner for most of the marriage should not be turned against me as if I can simply re-create that earning position now, after years of underemployment and after the marriage shifted into a de facto retirement structure.”

Sources:
- [RSMo 452.335](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335)
- [RSMo 452.370](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370)

If you want, I can turn that into a sharper `help vs hurt` note for your consult outline.


text: yeah, i won't be able to get a job.  i don't mind making it conditional on that, because it's not going to happen.


text:
That may be a sensible position, but say it carefully.

The safe version is not: “I’ll never get a job.”
The better version is: “I am open to reasonable expectations, but I do not believe it is realistic to assume I can re-enter the labor market at a level that solves this retirement-security problem.”

That helps because:
- it avoids sounding rigid or bad-faith,
- it leaves room for Sarah to shape the legal framing,
- and it still supports `indefinite maintenance` or long-term support with review conditions.

A good formulation for Sarah is:

```text
I’m not trying to take an absolutist position about work, but given my age, my underemployment since 2017, the fact that we have both effectively been retired since 2022, and my difficulty re-entering the market now, I do not think it is realistic to model this case around meaningful future employment income from me. If some conditional language is needed, I’m open to discussing that, but I don’t want the settlement built on a fictional earning assumption.
```

That is much stronger than “I refuse to work,” and much safer than letting the other side assume you can just go get a job and fix this.

If you want, I can turn that into a very short version you can actually say out loud on Monday.


text: god damn i'm scared.  i am so mad at Lisa for fucking me like this.


text:
Yes. That makes sense.

You spent years carrying the marriage, built your life around shared assumptions, and now you’re staring at the possibility of aging into insecurity while the stable income sits on her side. Fear is a rational response to that. Anger is too.

The useful move now is to keep the emotion pointed in the right direction:
“Lisa put me in a position where I may age into economic insecurity after a 21-year marriage, and I need a structure that prevents that.”

That is stronger than venting and safer than exploding. It turns the feeling into a claim about facts, risk, and remedy.

For Monday, the one sentence to hold onto is:
“I am scared of leaving this marriage without retirement security, and I need to understand what long-term enforceable support is realistically available.”

If you want, I can stay with you and help turn the anger into a tight three-point script for Sarah.


text: i just don't want to be scared anymore.  that's all.


text:
Then that is the goal.

Not punishment. Not winning. Not theory. Just: `I do not want to live in fear about housing, aging, and retirement.`

That is a clean, human, credible position. And honestly, it may be the clearest way to explain the whole case:
after a long marriage and all the choices made inside it, you do not want to come out the other side scared for the rest of your life.

If you need a sentence for Sarah, use this:

```text
My real goal is simple: I do not want to spend the rest of my life scared about basic financial security and retirement.
```

And if you want one step more formal:

```text
I’m not looking for a punitive result. I’m trying to reach an outcome where I am no longer living in fear of long-term economic insecurity.
```

That’s the heart of it.


text:
Lisa left me financially terrified.  she left me to take care of my dying mother alone.  she gave me no notice and no ability to correct any problems, despite me aggressively demanding we face such issues in therapy.  she left me now, when the world is in historic instability.

she is horrible.  objectively.


text:
You’re describing cruelty as you experienced it. I’m not going to argue with the feeling.

For the legal conversation, though, `“she is horrible”` is weaker than the facts. The stronger version is:

- She left you `financially terrified`.
- She left during your mother’s decline and left you to handle that alone.
- She gave you `no meaningful notice` and no real chance to address problems.
- She did that despite your repeated efforts to force the issues into therapy and deal with them directly.
- She did it at a time of unusual personal and global instability.

That is more powerful than the label, because it is concrete and defensible. You do not need to prove Lisa is “objectively horrible.” You need to show what she did and what it has done to your security.

If you want, I can turn what you just said into a short, controlled paragraph for Sarah that keeps the moral force without sounding overheated.


text: yes please.


text:
Here’s a controlled version for Sarah:

```text
I want to be candid about the context in which this divorce is unfolding. Lisa’s decision to end the marriage has left me financially terrified and has come at a time when I am also caring for my dying mother largely on my own. What is especially difficult is that this did not follow meaningful notice or a real opportunity to address problems, despite the fact that I repeatedly pushed for us to confront those issues directly in therapy. The timing and abruptness of the separation, during a period of extraordinary personal and broader instability, have left me feeling exposed and deeply unsafe. I say this not to be inflammatory, but to explain the seriousness of the economic and emotional position I am now in.
```

If you want, I can make it either `colder and lawyer-cleaner` or `a little sharper and more forceful`.


text: sharper, please.


text:
```text
I want to be candid about the context in which this divorce is unfolding. Lisa’s decision to leave the marriage has left me financially terrified and has come while I am dealing with my mother’s decline and end-of-life care largely on my own. What makes this especially hard is that she did this without meaningful notice and without giving us any real opportunity to address the problems, despite my repeated and urgent efforts to force those issues into therapy and confront them directly. The result is that I have been left abruptly exposed at a moment of profound personal vulnerability and broader instability, with my long-term financial security suddenly in question. I am not saying this to be dramatic; I am saying it because it is the reality of the position I am now in.
```


text: can we weave in the fact that i spent retirement resources to support or mutal business, and that i was the primary income provider?


text:
Yes. Here’s a sharper version with those facts folded in:

```text
I want to be candid about the context in which this divorce is unfolding. Lisa’s decision to leave the marriage has left me financially terrified and has come while I am dealing with my mother’s decline and end-of-life care largely on my own. What makes this especially hard is that I spent years as the primary income provider in the marriage, and I also deployed resources that could have become retirement security to support our household and build our shared business instead. She then ended the marriage without meaningful notice and without giving us any real opportunity to address the problems, despite my repeated and urgent efforts to force those issues into therapy and confront them directly. The result is that I have been left abruptly exposed at a moment of profound personal vulnerability and broader instability, with my long-term financial security suddenly in question. I am not saying this to be dramatic; I am saying it because it is the reality of the position I am now in.
```

If you want, I can make it one notch sharper still without tipping into “too hot for a lawyer.”