role: user

text: what is the current income stream per year from the trust?


role: assistant

text:
From the banked allowance stream we’ve documented, the current recurring figure looks like about `$16,506.10/month`, which annualizes to about `$198,073/year`.

Supporting examples:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:49`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:54`

There was an earlier recurring amount of `$16,152.62/month`, which annualizes to about `$193,831/year`:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:47`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:48`

Separately, our narrative docs refer to a broader practical range of about `$17,000–$19,500/month`, i.e. roughly `$204,000–$234,000/year`:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_retirement_security_mediation_brief.md:30`

So the tight answer is:
- `documented recurring deposits`: about `$198k/year`
- `broader discussed range`: about `$204k–$234k/year`

If you want, I can turn that into one clean sentence for the mediation brief.


text: are you not seeing something like $19,000 per month in the transactions?


text:
Not in the statement set we’ve imported so far.

What I’m seeing in the actual SLCCU transactions is:
- recurring `PERSHING` deposits of about `$16,152.62/month`
- later recurring `PERSHING` deposits of about `$16,506.10/month`
- occasional one-off deposits of `$50,000.00`

Examples:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:47`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:49`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:58`

So the answer is:
- `No`, I’m not seeing a recurring `$19,000/month` in the bank transactions we currently have.
- `Yes`, we do have narrative docs that refer to a broader practical range of `$17,000–$19,500/month`, but that range is not what the imported SLCCU deposit entries are showing right now: `records/analysis/2026-03-17_retirement_security_mediation_brief.md:30`

Most likely explanation: either
- the `$19k` figure came from a different time period / account view, or
- we don’t yet have the statement window that shows it.

If you want, I can make a clean month-by-month trust-deposit table from the statements we do have.


text: what are the dates of those transactions?


text:
From the statement set we’ve already extracted, the recurring `PERSHING` deposits I have logged are:

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

And the larger one-off `PERSHING` deposits are:

- `2024-12-18` — `$50,000.00`
- `2025-05-02` — `$50,000.00`

Those examples are recorded in `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:47`.

If you want, I can now pull every single `PERSHING` deposit date from the imported SLCCU statements and build the full table.


text: we got an increase of $3,000 later - i wonder why she didn't send any of those transactions.


text:
That’s my read too.

From the statement set we have, the progression is:

- `08/02/2024` — `$14,000.00`
- `09/04/2024` — `$14,000.00`
- `09/30/2024` — `$21,132.78` (looks one-off, not recurring)
- `10/02/2024` through `04/02/2025` — `$16,152.62`
- `05/02/2025` through `01/05/2026` — `$16,506.10`

So:
- I do see an increase, but it’s only about `+$353.48/month`, not `+$3,000/month`.
- If the allowance later went to something like `~$19,500`, those transactions are **not** in the statements she sent us.

That means one of two things:
- she stopped producing statements before the later increase, or
- the later deposits landed in a different account set we don’t have.

The clean factual point is:
- the imported SLCCU statements run through `January 5, 2026`, and they still show the recurring deposit at `$16,506.10`.

If you want, I can turn this into a short “missing statement gap” note for mediation/counsel.


text: can you review her text messages, we discussed this at one point and she claimed $19,500 was the right answer.


text: Using `messages` to do a bounded read-only search for the `$19,500` discussion.


text: Using `people` to resolve Lisa’s contact, then `messages` to search that thread.


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: wait - there should be a log of all the text messages with Lisa in the directory above us.  no need to pull them all again.


text: I’ll use the local message log in the parent repo instead of querying Messages again.


text:
Yes. The local Lisa log confirms that she explicitly gave `$19,500/month` as the gross number.

Key sequence in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl`:
- `:110` — Lisa: any modeling should work within the existing `$12,000/month` structure.
- `:111` — you: your understanding was roughly `$17k/month` plus about `$3k/month` toward Mom, i.e. about `$20k/month` total.
- `:112` — Lisa: `Gross trust disbursement: approximately $19,500 per month.`

So the clean read is:
- `Yes`, Lisa did explicitly state that `$19,500` was the right gross baseline.
- The confusion is that the thread also contains lower numbers (`$12k`, `~$17k`, `+$3k for Mom`) that seem to be talking about different cuts of the same cash flow.

If you want, I can pull that exact three-message exchange into a short evidence note.


text: ok - so using that number, what is the annual income?


text: `$19,500/month` annualizes to `$234,000/year`.


text: ok.  now, our projected budget.  what total does that make?


text:
The projected budget totals to:

- `$12,978/month`
- `$155,740/year`

Source: `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:29`

Against a trust income of `$19,500/month` / `$234,000/year`, that leaves:

- `+$6,522/month`
- `+$78,260/year`


text: ok.  i want to look at that budget again for weak spots.


text:
Good idea. The weak spots are the ones that look like `future lifestyle padding` instead of `reasonable needs`.

**Most Exposed**
- `Entertainment $1,050/month` — easiest target. Two to three dinners out per week plus activities is vulnerable.
- `Technology $1,370/month` — very high for a maintenance case. Some of it is professional infrastructure, but as a budget line it invites attack.
- `Food $1,500/month` — delivery-heavy framing is weak. Real, maybe, but easy to paint as inflated.
- `Transportation $1,200/month` — car + insurance + parking in SF is defensible only if SF itself is accepted.
- `Professional development $583/month` — plausible for employability, but weak if the argument is also that meaningful re-entry is unrealistic.
- `Travel $500/month` — moderate, but still discretionary-looking.
- `Savings buffer / contingency $800/month` — Sarah already warned that maintenance is usually about living expenses, not long-term accumulation.

**Moderately Exposed**
- `Personal care / misc $700/month` — can survive, but the “gifts + misc” part is soft.
- `Pet care $375/month` — probably fine, but still a possible trimming point.
- `Legal/financial/accounting $350/month` — some of this is real, but ongoing legal line items can look padded.

**Strongest / Most Defensible**
- `Housing $3,500/month`
- `Healthcare $800/month`
- core utilities / phone / internet components inside other categories
- basic food
- some transportation
- basic household/personal care

**Strategic Problem**
The current document is strong as a `standard-of-living advocacy piece`, but weaker as a `Missouri reasonable-needs maintenance budget`. Sarah’s note points exactly there: if you lead with this full number, Lisa can call it extravagant and Sarah may have trouble defending it as the right maintenance frame.

**Better Structure**
Use two budgets:
- `Reasonable needs floor` — harder, leaner, easier to defend
- `Marital standard / full continuity budget` — shows what the marriage actually supported

That gives you a negotiation range instead of one vulnerable target.

If you want, I can mark up the current budget into:
1. `defensible floor`,
2. `middle realistic number`,
3. `full standard-of-living number`.


text: right.  but remember, we don't want to use MO law as the basis, we want to strive for genuine fairness.


text:
Then the budget should be framed around `fair continuity of life`, not `bare statutory survival`.

That changes the target, but not the tactical problem: if a line item looks inflated or opportunistic, it weakens the fairness argument too. A fair budget still has to look coherent.

So the right move is:
- keep the `full fairness / standard-of-living` frame,
- but tighten the visibly vulnerable categories so the document reads as serious rather than aspirational.

In that frame:

**Keep**
- housing in the real SF range
- healthcare
- transportation if SF remains part of the premise
- pet care
- a real technology/professional infrastructure budget
- some travel for Juno / family connection
- a contingency reserve, though maybe smaller

**Tighten**
- food/delivery
- entertainment/social
- technology if it includes too many stack-on subscriptions
- professional development if you are simultaneously arguing limited realistic re-entry
- gifts/misc if they feel padded

**Core principle**
The fairness argument is strongest when it says:
- `I am not trying to live extravagantly.`
- `I am trying to preserve a stable, adult, recognizable version of the life this marriage actually supported.`

So I would still split it into:
- `Fair continuity budget`
- `Lean fallback budget`

Not because Missouri controls the moral question, but because mediation still runs on credibility.

If you want, I can do that split now using the current numbers.


text: let's tighten food delivery and entertainment/social.


text: I’m tightening the budget document directly: reducing `Food / delivery` and `Entertainment / social`, then recalculating the totals.


text:
Done.

- Tightened `Food / delivery` from `$1,500` to `$1,200/month` in `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:23`
- Tightened `Entertainment` from `$1,050` to `$800/month` in `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:27`
- Updated the narrative so food now assumes a more restrained mix of groceries + delivery in `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:61`
- Updated the social section to `once to twice per week` dining out in `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:99`

New total:
- `$12,428/month`
- `$149,140/year`

I also updated the LaTeX source and rebuilt the PDF:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.pdf`

At Lisa’s `$19,500/month` figure, that leaves about `$7,072/month` above this tightened budget.


text: so when they ask for numbers, i'm going to say "the simple answer is that i want what i would have had."


text:
That’s emotionally true, but it’s too abstract on its own.

Better version:

- `The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the security I reasonably expected to have if the marriage had continued.`
- `In practical terms, that means enough support to preserve a stable version of the life we were actually living, especially with respect to retirement and long-term financial security.`

Why this is better:
- `what I would have had` invites argument about hypotheticals
- `security I reasonably expected` ties it to shared expectation and reliance
- `in practical terms` forces the conversation back to support structure and numbers

If you want a shorter spoken line:

- `The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the security I reasonably expected to have if this marriage had continued.`

That’s cleaner and harder to attack.


text: remember - my first ask is to get agreement that we intended to use inheritance for retirement.


text:
Then lead with that first, before any numbers.

Use this sequence:

- `Before we get into numbers, I want to establish one core point: we made financial decisions during the marriage on the shared understanding that Lisa’s inheritance would provide our long-term retirement security.`
- `If we can agree on that, then the rest of the discussion is about what a fair structure looks like in light of that shared expectation and the decisions made in reliance on it.`
- `The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the security I reasonably expected to have if the marriage had continued.`

That order matters:
1. `shared expectation`
2. `reliance`
3. `fair result`

If you jump straight to “what I would have had,” they can argue about numbers before agreeing on the premise. Better to lock the premise first.


text: yes, silly.  i am going to lead with two questions first.  do you remember them?


text:
Yes.

The two questions were:

- `Do you contest the framing that our financial decisions during the marriage, including winding down Snow Day in 2022, were made with the shared expectation that your inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us?`
- `Do you agree that, apart from your inheritance / trust distributions, neither of us has any meaningful retirement security built up from the marriage?`

Files:
- `../outbox/messages/2026-03-17_to_lisa_attorney_question_shared_expectation_inheritance.txt:1`
- `../outbox/messages/2026-03-17_to_lisa_meaningful_retirement_security_question.txt:1`

That’s the right order too: `shared expectation` first, `absence of other retirement security` second.


text: nope.


text: I’m checking the mediation prep notes for the two opening questions.


text:
Yes. In the prep note, the first two are:

- `Do we agree the mediation should begin from what is fair, not only from what the law might technically allow?`
- `Do we agree that a fair outcome has to address long-term retirement security, not just short-term monthly support?`

Source: `records/analysis/2026-03-20_first_mediation_session_prep.md:130`

Those are the right opening questions because they set the frame before the numbers.


text: right.  now, given an affirmative answer to both of those, let's continue.


text:
Then the next move is to convert `fairness` into `retirement structure`.

Logical sequence after two yeses:

- `If we agree fairness is the frame, and we agree retirement security has to be addressed, then the next question is: what retirement security would each of us actually have if the marriage had continued?`
- `And after that: what concrete structure gets me to a fair approximation of my share of that security now that the marriage is ending?`

That gets you to the inheritance premise without making it the first fight.

A tight progression would be:

1. `Do we agree fairness is the frame?`
2. `Do we agree retirement security must be addressed?`
3. `If so, what was the retirement structure we were actually relying on?`
4. `What would a fair approximation of my share of that security look like in concrete terms?`

And at step 3, your answer is:
- `We were relying on Lisa’s inheritance and its income stream as the retirement backstop, because we did not build separate retirement security and instead used resources for the household and Snow Day.`

If you want, I can script the next 5 minutes of that conversation in spoken form.


text: so i want to answer the numbers question first with that.  NOT the budget we created.  we'll use that later when they finally push us there.


text:
That’s right.

When they first ask for numbers, don’t jump to the budget. Use the principle-level answer first:

- `The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the retirement security I reasonably expected to have if the marriage had continued.`
- `And the basis for that is the structure we were actually relying on: Lisa’s inheritance and its income stream as our long-term security.`

Only after that, if they force it into specifics:

- `I can translate that into concrete numbers, but I think it’s important to agree on the premise first — otherwise we’re arguing about outputs before agreeing on the underlying reality.`

That preserves the order:
1. fairness
2. retirement security
3. shared structure / inheritance premise
4. only then budget / numbers

That is much better than leading with the SF spreadsheet.


text: also, when they push for my budget, i want to ask for Lisa's budget too.


text:
Yes. That should be explicit.

Use:

- `If we’re going to talk about my budget, I think fairness requires that Lisa put her budget on the table too.`
- `I don’t think this can be a one-sided exercise where only my needs are scrutinized while hers are left assumed.`
- `If the question is what is fair, then we need to understand both sides of that equation.`

That fits the symmetry point in your prep note:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-20_first_mediation_session_prep.md:137`

The tactical reason is sound:
- if they only drill into your expenses, the conversation quietly shifts into `how little Karl can live on`
- asking for Lisa’s budget keeps it anchored on `comparative fairness`

A concise spoken version:

- `I’m willing to provide my budget, but only as part of a symmetrical conversation that includes Lisa’s budget as well.`

If you want, I can script exactly how to say that without sounding defensive.


text: right.  and when they ask me if i pla to get a job, i want to ask if Lisa plans to get a job.


text:
Yes. Same principle.

Use:

- `If the question is whether I plan to work, I think fairness requires that the same question be asked of Lisa.`
- `We have both effectively been retired since 2022, so I don’t think it makes sense to examine only my future earning plans in isolation.`
- `If work is part of the fairness analysis, then it has to be part of the analysis for both of us.`

That keeps the frame symmetrical without sounding evasive.

The cleanest short version is:

- `I’m willing to discuss realistic work expectations, but only if that inquiry is symmetrical and applies to both of us.`

That is better than just saying `does Lisa plan to get a job?`, because it sounds principled rather than reactive.

If you want, I can turn this into a short list of `when they ask X, I say Y` lines for mediation.


text: what did Sarah say when i asked her about framing the issue around fairness?


text:
Sarah said this, verbatim:

- `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.`
  `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:16`

She also paired that with two limits:
- lead with `reasonable and well-supported positions`, not something Lisa will see as `an extreme demand`
- bring concrete support: `monthly expenses`, `employment history`, `what you could reasonably expect to earn`, `business contributions`, and any writings showing reliance on the inheritance

So her position was not `don’t use fairness`.
It was:
- `yes, use fairness`
- but ground it in specific facts and avoid making the numbers sound rigid or maximalist at the outset.


text: she also said something about needing to account for MO law if mediation fails?


text:
Yes.

That was the practical subtext of her note: even in mediation, your position has to be shaped with Missouri in mind because the fallback is Missouri court.

The closest direct statements are:

- `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.`
  `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:16`

- `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.`
  `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:12`

- and earlier:
  `With respect to maintenance, MO does not use a fixed formula...` followed by the Missouri factors and her warning about imputed income and “reasonable needs”
  `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:8`

So the practical reading is:
- `Frame the conversation around fairness in mediation`
- but `don’t ignore Missouri`, because if mediation breaks down, Missouri is the legal backstop and it affects what looks credible and negotiable now.

That’s why she pushed you toward:
- fairness,
- strongest facts,
- reasonable support framing,
- and not opening with a giant fixed target.


text: oh.  new document.  we have Lisa's trust in ~/Downloads


text: I’m locating the trust PDF in `~/Downloads`, checking where trust documents already live in the repo, and then I’ll file it cleanly.


text: I found the file. I’m filing it under a new trust-docs folder in the repo and adding a short trace note.


text:
Filed it.

- PDF copied to `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust.pdf`
- Trace note added at `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/README.md:1`

What I verified:
- `8` pages
- scan-based PDF
- hash matches the Downloads original

If you want, next I can OCR it and pull out the parts that matter: trustee powers, distribution standards, principal vs income language, and any support restrictions.


text: yes, OCR it and pull everything.


text: I’m doing a full OCR pass now, then I’ll save the extracted text and pull the clauses that matter.


text: The bulk render path is bogging down on the scan-heavy PDF. I’m switching to a faster page render so I can get you the text without wasting time.


text: The render succeeded, but the first OCR pass pulled almost nothing. I’m checking the page images themselves now rather than pretending the blank output is useful.


text: I’m switching to macOS Vision OCR. It’s usually much better on scanned legal PDFs than raw Tesseract.


text:
Done.

- Full OCR text is saved at `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:1`
- Clause-level summary is saved at `records/analysis/2026-03-22_donahue_trust_terms_note.md:1`

Key pulls:
- This PDF is not a standalone trust agreement; it’s Ann Donahue’s will plus `2015` and `2019` codicils, with the `2015` codicil exercising the power of appointment over the older Anna I. Dill trust: `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:145`
- The estate/trust residue is split into `two equal shares`, one for Theodore and one for Elisabeth: `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:21`
- During each child’s life, the trustees `shall distribute ... the income from their share`: `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:27`
- Principal can also be distributed for `support and welfare`, but only in the non-family trustee’s discretion and after considering `other assets and income`: `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:32`
- The trustee has explicit power to allocate receipts and expenses between `principal` and `income`: `records/financial/trust/lisa_donahue/Donahue_Trust_ocr.txt:100`

Important limit:
- This does **not** tell us the current monthly distribution formula or whether current payments are income, principal, or a mix. I noted the missing-doc list in `records/analysis/2026-03-22_donahue_trust_terms_note.md:85`.

If you want, next I can turn this into a short “what matters for mediation” memo.