role: user

text: no... that's interesting.  so the trust (PERSHING) is actually depositing into the credit union?


role: assistant

text:
That’s what these statements indicate.

- The SLCCU account shows recurring entries labeled `Deposit ACH PERSHING`.
- Those deposits hit the `SHARE SAVINGS` side first.
- Money is then moved internally to `BRONZE CHECKING` via `Transfer To Share 0070` / `Transfer From Share 0001`.
- From checking, there are ACH withdrawals labeled `Withdrawal ACH CAPITAL ONE`.

So based on the statement labels alone, the flow looks like:

`PERSHING -> SLCCU savings -> SLCCU checking -> Capital One`

Example:
- `2025-10`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` of `$16,506.10` on `10/02`, then `Withdrawal ACH CAPITAL ONE` of `-$16,000.00` on `10/21` in `records/financial/bank_statements/slccu/account_245/2025-10_slccu_monthly_statement_account_245.html:379`

What I can’t prove from the label alone is the legal characterization of the PERSHING account. But yes: the statements do show funds from `PERSHING` being deposited directly into the credit union account.


text: and then they are moved to the capital one account.  and then they are moved into bank of america.  i am definitely on the credit union account, so this is clear evidence that the trust allowance goes directly into marital property.


text:
It is strong factual evidence of `commingling into a joint account structure`, yes.

What the statements directly show is:
- funds labeled `Deposit ACH PERSHING` going into the SLCCU account,
- the SLCCU account is one you are on,
- and from there funds are routed onward by transfer.

That is materially different from the allowance staying isolated in an account solely held and controlled on Lisa’s side.

The careful version is:
- `The statements appear to show trust-related distribution funds being deposited directly into an account that was part of the marital banking structure, not kept fully segregated.`
- `That is evidence of commingling and of the distributions being used in the marital cash-flow system.`

The one thing to avoid is overstating it as a finished legal conclusion like `therefore the trust is marital property`, because the tracing/legal classification question is more complicated than the bank labels alone. But as a factual point for Sarah or mediation, this is important.

A strong factual sentence would be:

```text
The statements appear to show the PERSHING distribution funds being deposited directly into the SLCCU account that I was on, then moved through our ordinary household banking flow. From my perspective, that is concrete evidence that the allowance stream was being treated as part of the marital financial system rather than kept meaningfully separate.
```

If you want, I can write a short evidence note with the exact monthly examples.


text: appear?


text:
Right. For the banking fact pattern, `appear` is too soft.

Use this instead:

```text
The statements show PERSHING deposits landing directly in the SLCCU account ending in 245. They also show those funds being moved through the joint account structure and then transferred onward to Capital One. Because I was on that credit union account, this is direct evidence that the allowance stream entered the marital banking system rather than being kept fully separate.
```

The caution belongs only on the `legal conclusion`, not on the `cash-flow fact`.

If you want, I can turn that into a short evidence memo with 4–5 dated examples.


text: if we don't need to mention the capital one account let's not bring it up, shall we?


text:
Agreed. It weakens the point by adding an unnecessary hop.

Cleaner version:

```text
The statements show PERSHING deposits landing directly in the SLCCU account ending in 245. Because I was on that credit union account, this is direct evidence that the allowance stream entered the marital banking system rather than being kept fully separate.
```

That keeps the point tight:
- `source`: PERSHING
- `destination`: joint SLCCU account
- `implication`: entered marital cash flow

If you want, I can make that slightly more formal for Sarah.


text: i'd like to create a new document that argues the case that we considered the trust as our retirement income.


text: I’m checking the existing retirement/marital-standard documents so the new note stays consistent with the facts you’ve already locked down.


text: Drafting a separate factual position note focused just on the point that the trust allowance was treated as shared retirement income in practice.


text:
Created: `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:1`

It makes the argument on three legs:
- `shared understanding` that the inheritance would be the long-term backstop,
- `behavioral evidence` from winding down Snow Day after `2022`,
- `cash-flow evidence` from recurring `Deposit ACH PERSHING` entries landing in the joint SLCCU account.

The clean closing line is:

> Throughout the marriage, Lisa's inheritance was understood as the source of our eventual retirement security. Once the allowance stream began, we reorganized our financial life around it, wound down active business operations, and lived on that income through the marital banking system. In practice, we treated the trust allowance as our retirement income.

If you want, I can show the full note here or turn it into a PDF.


text: i want to include the fact that we had no other retirement savings.  i can't document it, but it's painfully obvious and i doubt Lisa would try to contest it.


text: I’m adding that point directly: no separate meaningful retirement savings, and the reason it’s hard to “document” is that there weren’t retirement accounts to point to.


text:
Added to `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:13`

New language:

```text
For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. We did not build conventional retirement savings, and we did not maintain any other meaningful retirement fund separate from the inheritance expectation. Instead, marital resources went into the household and into the joint businesses we operated together. I also drew down personal reserves in reliance on the same understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide the backstop for our retirement years.

That absence is hard to "document" in the usual sense because there were no meaningful retirement accounts to point to. But it is the obvious financial reality of the marriage, and not something I believe Lisa could seriously dispute.
```

If you want, I can show the full note again.


text: the line "That absense" - what is that referring to?


text:
It refers to `the absence of separate meaningful retirement savings`.

It’s understandable in context, but a little loose. Better to make it explicit.

Use:

```text
The lack of separate meaningful retirement savings is hard to "document" in the usual sense because there were no meaningful retirement accounts to point to. But it is the obvious financial reality of the marriage, and not something I believe Lisa could seriously dispute.
```

If you want, I’ll patch that exact sentence in.


text: let's leave that last paragraph out.  it's silly.


text: Removing that paragraph from the trust-allowance note.


text:
Removed. The note now just keeps the concrete sentence about no separate meaningful retirement savings.

File: `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:13`

If you want, I can show the current full version.


text: please, yes.


text:
```text
**Trust Allowance as Retirement Income — Position Note**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-17 | Status: Working factual position note

---

**Core Point**

The central factual point is simple: Lisa's trust allowance was not treated in our marriage as a remote or separate asset that sat off to one side. It was treated as the income stream that would support our long-term security and, once it arrived, as the income stream we would live on in retirement.

This is not an argument that the trust principal itself is marital property. It is an argument about how the allowance stream was actually understood, relied on, and used in practice.

---

**The Shared Understanding**

Throughout the marriage, major financial decisions were made against a shared understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us. That understanding was not abstract. It shaped the actual way we organized our lives.

For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. We did not build conventional retirement savings, and we did not maintain any other meaningful retirement fund separate from the inheritance expectation. Instead, marital resources went into the household and into the joint businesses we operated together. I also drew down personal reserves in reliance on the same understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide the backstop for our retirement years.

That only makes sense if the inheritance income was understood as shared future retirement support. Otherwise, the economic choices we made during the marriage would have been irrational.

---

**Behavioral Evidence**

The strongest behavioral evidence comes from what happened in `2022`.

When Lisa's mother died and the inheritance arrived, we changed how we lived. We began winding down Snow Day rather than continuing to operate it as an ongoing growth business. The Etsy sales data supports that `2022` was the last fully active year, followed by a sharp and sustained contraction:

- `2022`: `418` orders / `$202,025.46` gross
- `2023`: `224` orders / `$118,552.66` gross
- `2024`: `164` orders / `$83,634.70` gross
- `2025`: `61` orders / `$40,255.85` gross

That pattern is consistent with a couple shifting from an active business model into a retirement-income model. In other words, we did not merely receive the inheritance; we reorganized our economic life around it.

---

**Cash-Flow Evidence**

The bank statements are important because they show how the allowance stream was actually handled.

The SLCCU statements for account ending in `245` show recurring monthly deposits labeled `Deposit ACH PERSHING` landing directly in that credit union account. I was on that account. That means the allowance stream was entering the marital banking system directly rather than being kept fully segregated on Lisa's side.

Examples from the statements include:

- `2024-11-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,152.62`
- `2025-01-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,152.62`
- `2025-06-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-07-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-08-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-09-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-10-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-11-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`

The same statements also show larger one-off PERSHING deposits, including:

- `2024-12-18`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$50,000.00`
- `2025-05-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$50,000.00`

Those statements do not show the allowance stream being isolated from marital use. They show it being deposited into an account that was part of our ordinary joint financial structure.

---

**Why This Matters**

If the trust allowance was the income stream we expected to live on in retirement, and if we in fact reorganized our finances around it once it arrived, then it is not accurate to describe me as someone who simply failed to prepare independently for retirement while Lisa separately maintained her own retirement system.

The facts are the opposite:

- we made joint economic decisions in reliance on the inheritance,
- we did not maintain separate meaningful retirement savings outside that expectation,
- we reduced or abandoned active business operations once the allowance arrived,
- we lived on the distribution stream,
- and the stream itself entered the joint banking structure.

That is the practical definition of treating the allowance as shared retirement income.

---

**Clean Statement**

The clearest way to say it is:

> Throughout the marriage, Lisa's inheritance was understood as the source of our eventual retirement security. Once the allowance stream began, we reorganized our financial life around it, wound down active business operations, and lived on that income through the marital banking system. In practice, we treated the trust allowance as our retirement income.

---

*This document is a working factual position note prepared for mediation and counsel discussion. It is not a legal filing.*
```


text: i feel like we should mention that other retirement assets (the BTC) were depleted to support the home and business.


text: Adding that point to the shared-understanding section so the retirement-asset depletion theory is explicit.


text:
Added to `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:14`

New sentence:

```text
That included other assets that could have become retirement-positioned resources, most notably the approximately 300 BTC I purchased early in the marriage and ultimately liquidated to support the household and sustain the business.
```

If you want, I can show the full note again with that folded in.


text: yes please


text:
```text
**Trust Allowance as Retirement Income — Position Note**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-17 | Status: Working factual position note

---

**Core Point**

The central factual point is simple: Lisa's trust allowance was not treated in our marriage as a remote or separate asset that sat off to one side. It was treated as the income stream that would support our long-term security and, once it arrived, as the income stream we would live on in retirement.

This is not an argument that the trust principal itself is marital property. It is an argument about how the allowance stream was actually understood, relied on, and used in practice.

---

**The Shared Understanding**

Throughout the marriage, major financial decisions were made against a shared understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us. That understanding was not abstract. It shaped the actual way we organized our lives.

For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. We did not build conventional retirement savings, and we did not maintain any other meaningful retirement fund separate from the inheritance expectation. Instead, marital resources went into the household and into the joint businesses we operated together. I also drew down personal reserves in reliance on the same understanding that Lisa's inheritance would ultimately provide the backstop for our retirement years. That included other assets that could have become retirement-positioned resources, most notably the approximately 300 BTC I purchased early in the marriage and ultimately liquidated to support the household and sustain the business.

That only makes sense if the inheritance income was understood as shared future retirement support. Otherwise, the economic choices we made during the marriage would have been irrational.

---

**Behavioral Evidence**

The strongest behavioral evidence comes from what happened in `2022`.

When Lisa's mother died and the inheritance arrived, we changed how we lived. We began winding down Snow Day rather than continuing to operate it as an ongoing growth business. The Etsy sales data supports that `2022` was the last fully active year, followed by a sharp and sustained contraction:

- `2022`: `418` orders / `$202,025.46` gross
- `2023`: `224` orders / `$118,552.66` gross
- `2024`: `164` orders / `$83,634.70` gross
- `2025`: `61` orders / `$40,255.85` gross

That pattern is consistent with a couple shifting from an active business model into a retirement-income model. In other words, we did not merely receive the inheritance; we reorganized our economic life around it.

---

**Cash-Flow Evidence**

The bank statements are important because they show how the allowance stream was actually handled.

The SLCCU statements for account ending in `245` show recurring monthly deposits labeled `Deposit ACH PERSHING` landing directly in that credit union account. I was on that account. That means the allowance stream was entering the marital banking system directly rather than being kept fully segregated on Lisa's side.

Examples from the statements include:

- `2024-11-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,152.62`
- `2025-01-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,152.62`
- `2025-06-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-07-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-08-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-09-03`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-10-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`
- `2025-11-04`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$16,506.10`

The same statements also show larger one-off PERSHING deposits, including:

- `2024-12-18`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$50,000.00`
- `2025-05-02`: `Deposit ACH PERSHING` — `$50,000.00`

Those statements do not show the allowance stream being isolated from marital use. They show it being deposited into an account that was part of our ordinary joint financial structure.

---

**Why This Matters**

If the trust allowance was the income stream we expected to live on in retirement, and if we in fact reorganized our finances around it once it arrived, then it is not accurate to describe me as someone who simply failed to prepare independently for retirement while Lisa separately maintained her own retirement system.

The facts are the opposite:

- we made joint economic decisions in reliance on the inheritance,
- we did not maintain separate meaningful retirement savings outside that expectation,
- we reduced or abandoned active business operations once the allowance arrived,
- we lived on the distribution stream,
- and the stream itself entered the joint banking structure.

That is the practical definition of treating the allowance as shared retirement income.

---

**Clean Statement**

The clearest way to say it is:

> Throughout the marriage, Lisa's inheritance was understood as the source of our eventual retirement security. Once the allowance stream began, we reorganized our financial life around it, wound down active business operations, and lived on that income through the marital banking system. In practice, we treated the trust allowance as our retirement income.

---

*This document is a working factual position note prepared for mediation and counsel discussion. It is not a legal filing.*
```


text: do you have the analysis from Sarah stored here?


text:
Yes.

The main Sarah material I know is stored in:
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:1`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-10_followup_after_consult.md:1`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/draft_reply_to_sarah_followup_questions_2026-03-17.txt:1`

But Sarah’s substantive written analysis — the numbered response about maintenance, asset division, imputed income, and your framing — does **not** look like it has been saved to a dedicated note yet.

If you want, I can create a clean file now with her analysis summarized or quoted from what you pasted.


text: yes please.


text: Saving Sarah’s written analysis as a dedicated note under the Wittrock folder, based on the Clio message you pasted here.


text:
Saved here: `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:1`

It’s a clean structured note of Sarah’s written analysis from the Clio message you pasted, including:
- maintenance vs asset division,
- imputed income / reasonable needs,
- why the `$2M-$2.5M` framing is weak,
- the fixed-term vs modifiable maintenance leverage point,
- and her advice on mediation framing and strengthening the brief.

If you want, I can also pull out a one-page “Sarah’s practical guidance” summary.


text: i want what she said verbatim, not your recounting of it.  obviously.


text: Replacing the Sarah note with the verbatim text you pasted, not my summary.


text:
Fixed.

`records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:1` now contains the verbatim text you pasted, not my summary.


text:
here is what she actually said - did you record it accurately?

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 .


text: I’m checking the saved file directly against what you just pasted.


text:
Yes. It matches what you just pasted.

Saved at `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:1`

I preserved the original wording, including:
- `int eh business`
- the extra space before the final period in `helpful .`
- the double/triple spaces and paragraph breaks as pasted

If you want, I can do the same verbatim-storage treatment for any other Clio messages.


text:
ok - regarding this paragraph:
Sarah Wittrock
1:20 PM
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.


text:
What about it? If you want, I can:
- break down what Sarah is really saying,
- pull out the strongest and weakest parts for your position,
- or help draft a response/question back to her.


text: i want to know if i have any protection from the retirement expectation and its withdrawl?


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


text: i want to ask her that.


text:
Use this:

```text
One question I have coming out of your analysis is whether I have any meaningful protection based on the retirement expectation itself and the withdrawal of that expectation.

What I mean is this: for years, the marriage operated on a shared understanding that Lisa’s inheritance and the income stream from it would be our long-term security, and that understanding shaped major financial decisions, including the depletion of other assets that could have served as retirement resources. Do those facts give me any protection or leverage in Missouri, even if the trust principal itself is not marital property?
```

If you want, I can save that into the Sarah draft file or copy it to `pbcopy`.


text:
i like it, let's add:

to be clear, Lisa has repeatedly stated she wants to do what's fair and not simply what is required by law.  that gives me hope - but at the same time she is reluctant to discuss what fairness might mean in concrete terms.

don't add that literally, rewrite/reframe it to the context.


text:
Here’s a tighter version with that folded in:

```text
One question I have coming out of your analysis is whether I have any meaningful protection based on the retirement expectation itself and the withdrawal of that expectation.

What I mean is this: for years, the marriage operated on a shared understanding that Lisa’s inheritance and the income stream from it would be our long-term security, and that understanding shaped major financial decisions, including the depletion of other assets that could have served as retirement resources. Do those facts give me any protection or leverage in Missouri, even if the trust principal itself is not marital property?

Part of why I ask is that Lisa has repeatedly said she wants to reach a fair outcome, not merely the narrowest result the law might require. That gives me some hope. At the same time, it has been difficult to get traction on what “fair” means in concrete terms, especially as it relates to the retirement structure we were both relying on. I am trying to understand whether that reliance itself has real significance in how this should be framed.
```

If you want, I can add a short opener and closer so it’s ready to send.