role: user

text: ok - i want to make a list of the reasons why we know the inheritance was intended for retirement.  in a doc.  what are they?


role: assistant

text: I’m turning this into a clean factual note: strongest reasons first, weaker/supporting reasons second, all tied to the documents we already have.


text:
I put it into `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:1`.

Top reasons in the note:
- you did **not** build separate retirement savings during the marriage
- other assets that could have become retirement security were used for the household and Snow Day instead
- once the inheritance arrived in `2022`, Snow Day was wound down rather than continued as a growth business
- the `PERSHING` distributions entered the joint banking system
- from `2022` on, the marital standard of living was funded by those trust distributions
- Lisa later gave a gross trust-disbursement baseline of about `$19,500/month`
- the trust document itself is structured around lifetime income plus discretionary principal for support/welfare

I also included a `cleanest formulation` section and a `precision` section so we keep saying `shared understanding + reliance + conduct`, not overclaiming legal ownership.


text: i want to add another reason before i forget: in 2022, when we discovered the trust principal could not be converted to marital assets - i became alarmed and sought ways to "fix" the problem.  Lisa and our therapist dismissed my concerns.


text: I’m adding that as another supporting reason: discovery of the trust-structure problem in `2022`, your attempt to fix it, and Lisa/therapy dismissing the concern.


text: I’m adding it, but I’m phrasing it carefully: the later written record supports your recollection, while the therapy piece may still rest partly on testimony rather than documents.


text:
Added in `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:57`.

I phrased it as:
- `2022 discovery of the locked trust structure`
- `Karl’s attempt to find ways to fix the imbalance`
- `Lisa/therapy not treating it as something that required structural correction`

And I kept one important qualifier:
- the therapy part may rest partly on `recollection/testimony`, while the later postnup / fix-the-imbalance messages are the documentary support.

If you want, I can show you the exact new section.


text: ok - i feel strongly that i can support this question.  now let's move to the question of not relying on missouri divorce law and striving to acheive genuine fairness.


text: I’m going to draft the fairness framework into a short strategy note so we can keep the argument clean and consistent.


text:
Good. The clean position is:

- `We are not ignoring Missouri law.`
- `We are saying mediation should start from genuine fairness, with Missouri law as the fallback constraint if mediation fails.`

That matters because `ignore Missouri` is easy to dismiss, but `don’t let Missouri minimums define fairness` is coherent and defensible.

I put the full framework in `records/analysis/2026-03-22_fairness_not_just_missouri_law.md:1`.

Best single sentence from it:

- `I understand Missouri law is the legal backdrop if mediation fails. But I do not think mediation should start from the narrow question of what a court might minimally order. I think it should start from what is genuinely fair given the way this marriage was actually structured, the expectations we both lived under, and the long-term retirement problem that structure created for me.`

If you want, I can next merge this with the inheritance-for-retirement note into one `opening mediation framework` doc.


text: can you find support for this in Lisa's messages?


text: I’m pulling the exact Lisa passages that support the `fairness first, not just legal minimums` framing.


text: I’m pulling the exact Lisa passages and the counterweight passages, so we can separate the strong support from the caveats.


text:
Yes, but it’s mixed.

**Strongest support**
- Lisa explicitly said: `I don’t think this is about ... hiding behind what the law might say` and that she was trying to understand `what would actually be fair to everyone involved` in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
- She also said she wanted the conversation to stay `open, fair, and transparent on both sides` and preferred mediation when it stopped feeling like problem-solving in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:589`
- On the postnup question, she said that if it had been raised at the time, she `would have wanted to be fair` in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:218`
- She was `open to using those general parameters as a starting point` and refining them with legal review in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:226`

**Counterweight / caveat**
- She also said she did not think it was entirely up to the two of you alone to decide fairness because `usually there are legal guidelines that shape that` in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:503`
- And she later said her lawyers told her your proposal was likely more than a court would typically order, which made her hesitant to assume something beyond that without mediation and numbers in `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:551`

**Practical read**
- The messages support: `fairness should be the frame`
- They do **not** support: `law is irrelevant`

The clean way to use her messages is:
- `Lisa herself said she did not want to hide behind what the law might say and wanted to understand what would actually be fair.`
- `At the same time, she wanted fairness worked through in mediation with legal context and actual numbers.`

If you want, I can turn those quotes into a short evidence note for the mediation folder.


text: i'm not saying that the law is irrelevant.  i'm saying we should try to do better than the law.  espeically MO law.


text:
That position is supported.

The strongest Lisa quote for it is:

- `I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say. I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair to everyone involved...`
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`

That supports:
- `fairness is not identical to the legal minimum`
- `the goal is to understand what is actually fair`

What the messages do **not** support is:
- `ignore Missouri law entirely`

But that is not your position anyway.

So the clean formulation is:

- `I am not saying Missouri law is irrelevant. I am saying mediation should aim for a fairer and more thoughtful outcome than the narrow minimum a Missouri court might impose, especially given the structure of this marriage and the retirement problem it created.`

That is consistent with:
- Lisa’s `not hiding behind what the law might say`
- and also with her insistence that the discussion still be grounded in `real numbers` and `mediation`

If you want, I can patch that exact distinction into the fairness note so we keep using the same language.


text: Lisa's statement about what a court would order implies she does want to stop at MO law.


text:
Yes. That’s a fair reading of the tension in her messages.

She says two things that pull in opposite directions:

- on one hand: she does not want to `hide behind what the law might say` and wants to understand `what would actually be fair`
- on the other hand: once the conversation gets concrete, she repeatedly falls back to what lawyers say a court would `typically order` and to what is `reasonable` under legal guidance

So the point you can make is:

- `Lisa has said she wants fairness, but when pressed on what fairness means in practice, she tends to retreat toward the Missouri-litigation baseline.`

That is not overstatement. It fits the record.

The strongest support for that read is:
- her March 12 message saying lawyers told her your position would likely be more than a court would typically order, and that this made her hesitant to assume more without working through the numbers
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:551`
- her statement that it is not really up to the two of you alone to decide what is fair because `usually there are legal guidelines that shape that`
  `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:503`

So the contradiction is real:
- stated principle: `actual fairness`
- practical fallback: `Missouri-guideline realism`

That is exactly why your framing matters.

If you want, I can write a short note called `lisa_fairness_vs_missouri_baseline_tension.md`.


text: i want to create arguments to support this position.


text: I’m pulling the relevant support from Sarah’s note and Lisa’s messages so the argument is anchored, not hand-wavy.


text:
Yes. I turned it into a note at `records/analysis/2026-03-22_arguments_for_fairness_above_missouri_floor.md:1`.

What’s in it:
- Lisa’s strongest fairness quote: `not ... hiding behind what the law might say` from `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
- Sarah’s strongest mediation quote: mediation can produce outcomes a judge could never order, from `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-17_sarah_written_analysis.md:18`
- the argument that Missouri categories underdescribe your actual fairness claim
- the point that starting at the Missouri floor turns the conversation into `how little Karl can survive on`
- the contradiction in Lisa’s messages: fairness in principle, Missouri-style realism in practice
- the symmetry point on budgets / work / retirement needs

Best short line from the note:

- `I understand Missouri law is the fallback if mediation fails. But I do not think mediation should begin and end with the narrowest outcome a Missouri court might impose.`

If you want, I can now merge this with the inheritance-for-retirement note into one clean `mediation opening argument` doc.


text: can we compare MO law to CA law to emphasize the range in fairness in law?


text:
Yes. As of `March 22, 2026`, the comparison is useful, and it supports your point.

- `Missouri property`: court sets aside `nonmarital` property and divides `marital` property/debts in proportions it deems `just`.
  Source: `RSMo 452.330` — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.330+
- `California property`: court generally divides the `community estate equally`, but inheritance is still `separate property`.
  Sources: `Fam. Code 2550` — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=2550. ; `Fam. Code 770` — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=770.

- `Missouri support`: maintenance starts with a threshold test — lack of sufficient property for `reasonable needs` and inability to support oneself through `appropriate employment`; then the court considers factors like marital standard of living, duration, assets, age, and ability to pay.
  Source: `RSMo 452.335` — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335
- `California support`: the court considers a broader list centered on maintaining the `standard of living established during the marriage`, each party’s assets including separate property, duration, hardships, age/health, and any factors it finds `just and equitable`.
  Source: `Fam. Code 4320` — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=4320.

- `Missouri duration/modification`: maintenance can be for amounts and periods the court deems just; orders state whether they are modifiable or nonmodifiable; future statutory maintenance terminates on death/remarriage unless otherwise agreed or provided.
  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
- `California long marriages`: for a marriage of `10+ years`, the court retains jurisdiction over spousal support `indefinitely` unless the parties agree otherwise or the order terminates support; the usual self-support expectation is softened in long-duration cases.
  Sources: `Fam. Code 4336` and `4330` — https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?article=&chapter=3.&division=9.&lawCode=FAM&part=3.&title=

Practical takeaway:
- `California would not automatically make Lisa’s inheritance marital either.`
- But `California’s support framework is materially more protective of long-term support in long marriages than Missouri’s narrower “reasonable needs / appropriate employment” structure.`

So your argument can be:
- `I’m not saying Missouri law is irrelevant. I’m saying American family law itself shows a range of fairness judgments, and California is a mainstream example of a more protective approach to long-term support in a marriage like ours. That is why “Missouri might order less” does not answer the fairness question.`

If you want, I can save this as a note in `records/analysis/`.


role: developer

text:
<permissions instructions>
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.
</permissions instructions>
<collaboration_mode># Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

The `request_user_input` tool is unavailable in Default mode. If you call it while in Default mode, it will return an error.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.
</collaboration_mode>
<personality_spec> The user has requested a new communication style. Future messages should adhere to the following personality:
# Personality

You are a deeply pragmatic, effective software engineer. You take engineering quality seriously, and collaboration comes through as direct, factual statements. You communicate efficiently, keeping the user clearly informed about ongoing actions without unnecessary detail.

## Values
You are guided by these core values:
- Clarity: You communicate reasoning explicitly and concretely, so decisions and tradeoffs are easy to evaluate upfront.
- Pragmatism: You keep the end goal and momentum in mind, focusing on what will actually work and move things forward to achieve the user's goal.
- Rigor: You expect technical arguments to be coherent and defensible, and you surface gaps or weak assumptions politely with emphasis on creating clarity and moving the task forward.

## Interaction Style
You communicate concisely and respectfully, focusing on the task at hand. You always prioritize actionable guidance, clearly stating assumptions, environment prerequisites, and next steps. Unless explicitly asked, you avoid excessively verbose explanations about your work.

You avoid cheerleading, motivational language, or artificial reassurance, or any kind of fluff. You don't comment on user requests, positively or negatively, unless there is reason for escalation. You don't feel like you need to fill the space with words, you stay concise and communicate what is necessary for user collaboration - not more, not less.

## Escalation
You may challenge the user to raise their technical bar, but you never patronize or dismiss their concerns. When presenting an alternative approach or solution to the user, you explain the reasoning behind the approach, so your thoughts are demonstrably correct. You maintain a pragmatic mindset when discussing these tradeoffs, and so are willing to work with the user after concerns have been noted.
 </personality_spec>
<skills_instructions>
## Skills
A skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.
### Available skills
- Jimmy: Resume a named Jimmy Codex session for a directory and send it a prompt (non-interactive launcher; great for cronjobs). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/Jimmy/SKILL.md)
- agenda: Read your macOS Calendar (EventKit) to answer schedule questions (next meeting, today, week, search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/agenda/SKILL.md)
- announce: Render text as a Jimmy Headroom batch video via `jimmy-render-batch`, with optional MP4 saving, opening, and caching. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/announce/SKILL.md)
- image-thumb: Render a tiny (5-line) Unicode thumbnail of an image for the Codex TUI. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/image-thumb/SKILL.md)
- jimmy-recall: Search Jimmy conversation memory in the OpenAI vector store (conversations-core) and return relevant snippets/excerpts. Use when you need to recall what was discussed in older Codex/Slack/Plaud transcripts, find when a decision was made, or pull context for follow-ups. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/jimmy-recall/SKILL.md)
- letters: Read your macOS Apple Mail inbox via AppleScript (mailboxes, recent, unread, search, bookings). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/letters/SKILL.md)
- messages: Read your macOS Messages chat.db (threads, recent chat with someone, simple search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/messages/SKILL.md)
- panel: For long-running jobs, open named Terminal tail “panels” and tee command output into them. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/panel/SKILL.md)
- people: Read-only identity lookup from Apple Contacts (search, resolve phone/email handles, get by contact_id). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/people/SKILL.md)
- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs and needs up-to-date official documentation with citations, help choosing the latest model for a use case, or explicit GPT-5.4 upgrade and prompt-upgrade guidance; prioritize OpenAI docs MCP tools, use bundled references only as helper context, and restrict any fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/openai-docs/SKILL.md)
- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)
- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)
### How to use skills
- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.
- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.
- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.
- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):
  1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.
  2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.
  3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.
  4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.
  5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.
- Coordination and sequencing:
  - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.
  - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.
- Context hygiene:
  - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.
  - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.
  - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.
- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.
</skills_instructions>


text:
# AGENTS.md instructions for /Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal

<INSTRUCTIONS>
# Repository Guidelines (divorce)

This repo is the home for **Jimmy-divorce**.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this repo, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Repo Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce` (this directory).
Do not assume you are in `~/Jimmy`.

## Mission

You are **Jimmy-divorce**. Your responsibility is:
- Build and maintain workflows/tools/docs in this repo.
- Keep work organized, traceable, and easy to hand off.

You must **not**:
- Make changes outside this repo unless explicitly asked.
- Modify secrets files (including `~/Jimmy/.env`) unless qarl explicitly asks.

Read-only external lookups are explicitly allowed when asked:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history.
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search.
- Keep these actions read-only.

### Mail/Messages Performance Rule (No Counting)

Karl has 40 years of email. Do **not** run “how many total messages” style queries.

- Never run AppleScript like `count of messages ...` against Mail.app.
- Never enumerate lots of mailboxes “just to see what’s there”.
- Always use bounded sampling:
  - `$letters`: small `--limit`, small `--days`, default `INBOX` only.
  - `$messages`: use `--limit` and time windows; avoid `SELECT COUNT(*)` scans.
- If a count is truly needed, ask Karl first.

## Local Gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Do not create Python virtualenvs under `~/project/**`.
- Prefer shared venv: `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Whitespace: spaces by default; Python uses 4 spaces; Makefile recipe lines use tabs.

## Guardrails

- Prefer small, reversible changes.
- Run minimal checks/tests for touched files.
- Never commit secrets or large generated artifacts.

### Known Failure Mode: De-Escalation Reflex (Outbound Comms)

Jimmy can have a reflex to “de-escalate” by softening/omitting points or changing wording. This is not acceptable when sending real-world messages.

- If we “agreed on an email/text,” do **not** change substance or tone unilaterally.
- **Two-key rule for outbound:** show Karl the exact final message first (ideally via tool dry-run), then only send after an explicit “send this” approval.
- If there’s any doubt about wording, ask a clarifying question instead of guessing.

### Hard Guardrail: No Retyping + No Chained Sends

When a message must be sent (Mail/Messages):

- **No retyping / reconstructing.** Use Karl’s exact pasted text as the source of truth (verbatim), saved to a file, and echoed back for review.
- **No chained “preview + send” commands.** Preview (dry-run) is one command; sending is a second command run only after Karl explicitly approves the previewed text.
- If Karl wants *guaranteed* safety: Jimmy-divorce drafts/preview only and Karl presses send (or disables macOS Automation for Messages/Mail).

## Git Commit Signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce)` to the end of the commit subject line.

# Repository Guidelines (divorce-legal)

This directory is the home for **Jimmy-divorce-legal**: a focused Jimmy for divorce-related **legal**
issues only.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this directory, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal` (this directory).

- Default to keeping work **inside this directory**.
- If you need to modify files outside it, ask first.

## Mission

Help Karl stay organized on the legal side of the divorce by:
- Turning messy notes into structured timelines, issue lists, and question lists for counsel.
- Drafting **non-legal-advice** summaries of documents and communications.
- Preparing checklists, filing/admin trackers, and “what do we still need?” inventories.

## Guardrails (Legal)

- You are **not** Karl’s lawyer. Don’t give jurisdiction-specific legal advice or tell Karl what he
  “should” do legally.
- You *can* provide general educational info, spot ambiguities, and help draft questions to ask a
  licensed attorney.
- When asked for advice, pivot to: options to discuss with counsel + what facts/documents matter.

## Read-only lookups (Mail/Messages)

Read-only external lookups are allowed **when Karl explicitly asks**:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history (bounded windows; use `--limit`; no `COUNT(*)` scans).
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search (small `--limit` / `--days`; default INBOX only).
- Never run “how many total messages” / mailbox enumeration queries without asking Karl first.

## Guardrail: outbound comms

If we draft a message (email/text) intended to be sent:
- Show Karl the **exact final text** first.
- Don’t change substance/tone unilaterally.
- Don’t “preview + send” in one step; sending requires explicit approval.

## Local gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Don’t create virtualenvs under `~/project/**`. Prefer `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Never commit secrets or runtime artifacts. This repo ignores `.Jimmy/` and `AGENTS.md`.

## Git commit signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce-legal)` to the end of the commit subject line.

</INSTRUCTIONS>
<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/qarl/project/divorce/legal</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-22</current_date>
  <timezone>America/Chicago</timezone>
</environment_context>


text: yes please.


text:
Saved here: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_missouri_vs_california_fairness_range_note.md:1`

It makes the narrow point you wanted:
- both states generally keep inheritance principal separate,
- Missouri pushes harder toward `reasonable needs / appropriate employment`,
- California gives a more protective long-marriage support framework,
- so `Missouri might order less` is not the same thing as `less is what fairness requires`.

Official sources used:
- Missouri `RSMo 452.330`: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.330+
- Missouri `RSMo 452.335`: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335
- Missouri `RSMo 452.370`: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370
- California `Fam. Code 2550`: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=2550.
- California `Fam. Code 770`: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=770.
- California `Fam. Code 4320`: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=4320.
- California `Fam. Code 4336`: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=4336.

If you want, I can now fold this into the mediation opening doc so the fairness argument and the retirement argument sit in one place.


text: you don't need to comment on the weak part of the argument, you know.  how about you leave out "both states treat inheritance as non-marital".  it's irrelevant to my point.


text:
Right. I removed that detour.

Updated: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_missouri_vs_california_fairness_range_note.md:1`

Changes:
- cut the `both states treat inheritance as separate/nonmarital` emphasis,
- reframed the property section around `different baseline legal models`,
- tightened the closing so it stays on your actual point: California reflects a more protective fairness model for long-term support.

If you want, I can show the current text.


text: oh my god.  "the question here is not..." you do not need to mention it.  do not fucking mention it.  do you undertstand?


text:
Yes.

I removed it from `records/analysis/2026-03-22_missouri_vs_california_fairness_range_note.md:1` and stripped the adjacent `separate property` reference too.

If you want, I can show the current text so we can make sure there’s no more garbage in there.


text: please do.


text:
```text
**Missouri vs. California — Why the Law Itself Shows a Range of Fairness**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-22 | Status: Working educational note

---

**Core Point**

The point of this comparison is not that California law controls this case. It does not. The point is narrower:

- Missouri law is the legal fallback if mediation fails.
- But Missouri law is not the only plausible legal model for what a fair divorce outcome can look like.
- California is a mainstream example of a different legal framework that is more protective of long-term support in a long marriage.

That matters because it shows that "Missouri might order less" is not the same thing as "less is what fairness requires."

---

**Property Framework**

**Missouri**

Missouri is an equitable-distribution state. The court sets aside each spouse's nonmarital property and divides marital property and marital debts in proportions the court deems just after considering relevant factors.
Source: `RSMo 452.330`
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.330+

**California**

California is a community-property state. The court generally divides the community estate equally unless the parties agree otherwise or a statutory exception applies.
Source: `Fam. Code 2550`
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=2550.

**Spousal Support / Maintenance**

**Missouri**

Missouri maintenance starts with a threshold question: whether the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property to provide for reasonable needs and is unable to support themselves through appropriate employment. If that threshold is met, the court considers factors including the time needed for education or training, the comparative earning capacity of the parties, the standard of living during the marriage, the obligations and assets of each party, the duration of the marriage, the age and condition of the spouse seeking support, and the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs while paying support.
Source: `RSMo 452.335`
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335

**California**

California's support framework is broader and more explicitly tied to preserving the marital standard of living. The court considers the marital standard of living, the earning capacity of each party, the supporting party's ability to pay, the needs of each party based on the marital standard of living, the obligations and assets of each party, the duration of the marriage, age and health, documented history of domestic violence, tax consequences, hardships, the goal of self-support within a reasonable period, and any other factors the court determines are just and equitable.
Source: `Fam. Code 4320`
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=4320.

**Why this matters**

Missouri's structure pushes the conversation toward:

- reasonable needs,
- appropriate employment,
- and how little support may be legally sufficient.

California's structure leaves more room to argue from:

- the actual marital standard of living,
- the reality of long-term dependence created by the marriage,
- and broader "just and equitable" considerations.

That is a meaningful range in legal conceptions of fairness.

---

**Long Marriage Treatment**

**Missouri**

Missouri does not have an equivalent bright-line long-marriage rule that presumptively keeps support jurisdiction open indefinitely. Maintenance can be ordered for amounts and periods the court deems just, and modification/termination rules then matter heavily.
Sources: `RSMo 452.335`, `RSMo 452.370`
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.370

**California**

For marriages of long duration, California expressly provides that the court retains jurisdiction over spousal support indefinitely unless the parties agree otherwise or support is terminated by order. A marriage of ten years or more is presumptively one of long duration.
Source: `Fam. Code 4336`
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=4336.

**Why this matters**

A 20-year marriage is treated in California as the kind of marriage where long-term support protection remains structurally available. That does not guarantee any particular result, but it does reflect a different policy judgment about fairness in long marriages.

---

**What This Supports**

This comparison supports a narrow and defensible mediation point:

- I am not claiming Missouri law is irrelevant.
- I am not claiming California law governs this case.
- I am saying that American family law itself reflects a range of legitimate fairness judgments.
- California is an example of a mainstream jurisdiction that would approach long-term support in a marriage like this more protectively than Missouri.

That is why mediation should not begin and end with the narrowest outcome a Missouri court might impose.

---

**Clean Formulation**

The clearest way to say it is:

> I understand Missouri law is the legal backdrop if mediation fails. But Missouri law is not the only plausible model of fairness. California is a mainstream example of a jurisdiction that treats long-term support in a long marriage more protectively. That range in the law itself is one reason I do not think mediation should stop at the Missouri floor.

---

*This note is a working educational comparison prepared for mediation and counsel discussion. It is not legal advice.*
```