role: user

text: here's a question - do we make it clear we were expecting Lisa's inheritance to be our retirement?  and that's why we depleted other resources?


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: why on earth are you doing web searches?


role: assistant

text:
Because this is a legal/financial question, and I’m wired to verify high-stakes stuff against primary sources instead of bluffing.

For this particular question, though, I don’t need the web. I can keep it local and just help with the framing.

Short answer: `yes`, but phrase it carefully.

You do want to make clear that:
- there was a `shared expectation` that Lisa’s inheritance/trust-backed income would provide long-term security,
- and that this expectation influenced why other assets were used for the household and Snow Day instead of being preserved as retirement savings.

You do **not** want to phrase it as:
- “her inheritance was mine,” or
- “I’m claiming part of the trust principal.”

The safe, strong version is:

```text
A critical part of the financial context is that our decisions during the marriage were made against a shared understanding that Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us. That understanding shaped why other resources, including assets that might otherwise have been preserved for retirement, were instead deployed to support the household and build our shared business.
```

If you want, I can fold that directly into the Gerli note.


text: yeah.... i didn't say that.  and it doesn't make sense to do a search in this context.  did you just glitch?


text:
Yes. That was a glitch.

I overfired on the “high-stakes legal/financial” reflex. For a question about how to frame *your own facts* in a mediator note, a web search makes no sense. I should have stayed local and answered directly.

I’ll keep this scoped the right way:
- `your facts / drafting / strategy framing` -> local only
- `current law / verification` -> only if actually needed or if you ask

And yes, on the substance: we probably **should** make that point, but carefully as a `shared expectation that shaped marital financial decisions`, not as a claim to the trust principal.

If you want, I’ll fold that exact idea into the Gerli note now.


text: yes please.


text: I’m folding that into the Gerli note as a shared financial expectation that shaped how marital resources were used, without implying a claim on the trust principal.


text:
I folded it in at [2026-03-10_karl_perspective_case_note.md](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal/records/mediators/gerli/2026-03-10_karl_perspective_case_note.md:10).

The revised paragraph now says:

```text
For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. Over time, marital resources were used to support the household and to build Snow Day, the custom 3D snow globe business we built together, rather than to accumulate conventional retirement savings. Early in the marriage, I also purchased approximately 300 BTC with marital funds and ultimately liquidated it to support the household and sustain us while building the business. A critical part of that financial context is that our decisions were made against a shared understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us. My point in raising this is not to argue over later appreciation or to challenge the trust principal, but to explain why resources that could have become retirement security were instead deployed into the marriage and our shared enterprise.
```

That keeps the point clear without overstating the legal claim.


text: ok - can you give me the entire thing again, and use pbcopy to put it in my copy buffer


text: I’m pulling the final mediator note text and copying the plain-text statement to your clipboard so you can paste it directly.


text:
```text
Lisa and I were married in 2005 and were together for more than twenty years. Over the course of the marriage, we operated as an integrated economic partnership rather than as two financially separate people.

For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. Over time, marital resources were used to support the household and to build Snow Day, the custom 3D snow globe business we built together, rather than to accumulate conventional retirement savings. Early in the marriage, I also purchased approximately 300 BTC with marital funds and ultimately liquidated it to support the household and sustain us while building the business. A critical part of that financial context is that our decisions were made against a shared understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us. My point in raising this is not to argue over later appreciation or to challenge the trust principal, but to explain why resources that could have become retirement security were instead deployed into the marriage and our shared enterprise.

I have been underemployed since 2017. Since Lisa's mother died in 2022, Lisa and I have both effectively been retired. At this point, I am 56 and do not have meaningful retirement savings, and I do not believe there is now enough time for me to build meaningful retirement savings from scratch. I also have serious trepidation about re-entering the job market in a way that would realistically solve the long-term financial problem now in front of me.

Lisa has a trust of roughly $5 million and receives approximately $19,000 per month in allowance or distribution income. I am not a beneficiary of that trust, and I am not looking to challenge the classification of the trust principal. From my perspective, however, the monthly distribution stream is the only stable and predictable source available for modeling a durable settlement.

The central issue for me is retirement security. My goal is not a punitive outcome. I am trying to avoid leaving a long marriage in a state of structural economic insecurity, especially given the way the marriage was organized financially and the expectations under which I made decisions during it.

I also want to be candid that the separation has felt abrupt and destabilizing from my side. I repeatedly pushed for us to confront major issues directly in therapy, and I do not feel I was given meaningful notice or a real opportunity to correct course before the marriage was ended. That context matters to me because it is part of why I now feel financially exposed and frightened about the future.

Even so, I would strongly prefer a settlement-oriented process over litigation. If mediation can help us reach a fair structure for support, security, and an orderly unwinding of financial issues, that is the path I want to pursue.
```

Copied to your clipboard from [2026-03-10_karl_perspective_case_note.md](/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal/records/mediators/gerli/2026-03-10_karl_perspective_case_note.md:1).