role: user

text:
ok!  we got something back from Sarah:

Karl:
I reviewed what you’ve sent.  I am unclear if you are scheduled for an intake consultation with Jennifer Piper tomorrow morning, or if it’s an actual mediation session.  If it’s a consultation, it’s likely going to be similar to our meeting where Jennifer gathers background information to better understand the issues in your case.  Below are my numbered responses to your requests above.

1.  The 2 primary issues in your divorce are spousal support (maintenance) and the division of assets.  There are several challenges based on the specific facts of your case.

In MO, marital property is divided equitably between spouses.  One factor the court considered is each spouse’s access to non-marital financial resources (such as Lisa’s inheritance).  While you may be able to use Lisa’s $5M inheritance (which is not marital) to negotiate a disproportionate share of the marital assets, my understanding is that there are minimal marital assets to divide.  As a result, even a disproportionate division may not yield meaningful recovery in line with your ultimate goal.  Additionally, without reviewing her Trust document, I cannot assess its specific terms, but you are correct that her inheritance itself is not marital property.

With respect to maintenance, MO does not use a fixed formula.  Instead, the Court evaluates whether you are able to support yourself through appropriate employment and whether you lack sufficient property to meet your reasonable needs.  The Court considers multiple factors including the time necessary for you to obtain education/training for employment, Lisa’s earning capacity and financial resources, the standard of living during the marriage, assets available to each of you (including her Trust), the length of the marriage, your ages, and Lisa’s ability to meet her own needs while contributing to yours.

From a practical standpoint, although you’ve been out of your prior industry for 11+ years and do not intend to continue operating Snow Day, the Court is likely to impute income to you for purposes of evaluating maintenance.  If, even with imputed income, you are still unable to meet your reasonable needs, the Court would then evaluate whether Lisa has sufficient income, after meeting her own needs, to then contribute to yours.  It is important to note that reasonable needs does not typically include retirement savings as maintenance in general is intended to cover necessary living expenses, not long-term wealth accumulation.

Given these considerations, I am concerned that your stated goal of receiving $2M-$2.5M over the next 11 years appears unlikely, based on the current information available to me.  Your brief indicates flexibility in how that goal could be reached, your goal itself does not appear to be flexible which may present a challenge in negotiations.

That said, Lisa does have potential vulnerability regarding the duration of a maintenance payment.  If this matter were to be considered at Trial by the Court, the Judge can only order modifiable maintenance, meaning there is no fixed end-date.  This creates uncertainty for Lisa since she would need to return to Court in the future to modify or terminate the maintenance obligation which is an expensive and time-consuming process.  In mediation and through settlement, you and Lisa can agree to a fixed-term for her maintenance obligation.  While this carries risk for you both if circumstances change, since neither of you would be able to modify the fixed-term, the certainty of a defined end-date may be particularly appealing to hear and could be used as a negotiation point.

2.  It will likely be most effective to lead with reasonable and well-supported positions, rather than what may be viewed by Lisa as an extreme demand.  You should try to frame your requests in terms of fairness, grounded in the strongest facts of your case like the length of your marriage, the investment of your savings into the business, your reliance on Lisa's promises about how the inheritance would be used, and your current financial circumstances.  It may be helpful to come with an outline of your estimated current financial needs/monthly expenses, your employment history, an estimated range of what you think you could reasonably expect to earn right now, details on the contributions/investments you made to the family business, etc.  Helpful documents to gather include anything illustrating your contributions to the business, any communications in writing with Lisa supporting your understanding of how her inheritance played a role in the family financial planning.

Keep in mind that at the outset of mediation (whether tomorrow is just a consult or even the 1st session) you do not need to disclose your bottom line or outline every area you are willing to compromise.  This early in the process, you should try to develop an understanding of where Lisa is at on the 2 primary issues and try to remain open to creative solutions.  Mediation allows for you and Lisa to develop agreed-upon outcomes that the Judge could never order at a Trial.

3.   It’s unusual for mediators to request a formal brief or position statement, unless it is attorney-assisted mediation (meaning the lawyers are also attending).  I think it’s helpful to prepare an organized outline of the issues along with a list of your goals.  The role of the mediator isn’t to arbitrate or decide the issues, but to help facilitate a conversation between you and Lisa, aimed at resolution.  If you intend to use your brief as a reference during your meeting with Jennifer tomorrow, I suggest strengthening it by adding more specificity and supporting detail.  For example, clearly quantify how much of your savings you invested into Snow Day, provide context for how those funds were used and the role they played int eh business, elaborate on how you came to understand that Lisa’s inheritance would provide long-term financial security for your family (e.g., was this explicitly discussed, promised, relied upon in making financial decisions, etc.).  Grounding your position in concrete facts will be helpful .


role: assistant

text:
This is useful. Sarah is giving you a fairly clear map.

**What She’s Saying**
- The two real issues are `maintenance` and `asset division`, but she thinks the asset side is probably thin because the trust principal is not marital and the marital estate may be small.
- She expects a court would likely `impute some income` to you, even if you haven’t worked meaningfully for years.
- She thinks `retirement accumulation` is not the strongest legal frame for maintenance; `reasonable living needs + inability to self-support appropriately` is the stronger frame.
- She thinks the `\$2M-\$2.5M over 11 years` target is too rigid and likely weakens your negotiating position.
- She sees your best leverage as `Lisa’s exposure to indefinite modifiable maintenance` if this ever goes to trial.

**Practical Translation**
- Don’t lead with `“I need \$2M.”`
- Lead with: `“Here are my actual monthly needs, here is why I can’t realistically rebuild at 56, here is what I contributed, and here is why a durable support structure is fair.”`
- In other words: convert the retirement fear into `monthly need + duration + facts`.

**What She Wants You To Bring**
- `Current monthly budget / reasonable needs`
- `Employment history` and a realistic current earning range
- `Concrete Snow Day contributions` and money you put in
- `Any writings or statements` showing you relied on Lisa’s inheritance as shared long-term security

**Immediate Next Move**
- If you haven’t already, answer her threshold question plainly: `the Wednesday, March 18, 2026 9:00am call with Jennifer Piper is an intake consultation, not an actual mediation session.`

**My Read**
- Sarah is not saying you have no case.
- She is saying your current framing is too capital-target-driven, and that the more credible mediation framing is `fair monthly support, supported by facts, with duration as the leverage point.`

If you want, I can do two things next:
- rewrite your mediator brief to match Sarah’s feedback, or
- update the budget doc so you have a tighter “reasonable monthly needs” number for tomorrow.


text: i want to answer her.  i think it's important to say that i do not believe that Lisa will contest the retirement question.  i will definitely reframe my position to be around financial need.  i want to ask if the marital standard of living should come into play - as the standard i was living in was a mutually agreed early retirement.


text:
Use this:

```text
Hi Sarah,

Thank you — this is very helpful, and I appreciate the candid assessment.

My understanding is that tomorrow morning with Jennifer Piper is an intake consultation, not an actual mediation session.

I also understand your point that I should reframe my position around financial need and a reasonable, well-supported maintenance case rather than around a fixed retirement number, and I will do that.

One point I did want to make is that I do not currently believe Lisa will really contest the underlying retirement issue itself. From my perspective, the standard we were living in was a mutually agreed early retirement, and that is a large part of why this feels so destabilizing now.

With that in mind, should the marital standard of living factor include the fact that we had effectively transitioned into an agreed early-retirement structure? In other words, is that part of the picture I should be emphasizing as I reframe this around reasonable needs and support?

Thank you,
Karl
```

If you want, I can tighten it further or send it to `pbcopy`.