role: user

text: why do i deserve 50% of the allowance?


role: assistant

text:
As a `fairness` argument, not a Missouri-law entitlement, `50%` is supportable because:

- you and Lisa treated the marriage as one economic partnership, not two separate retirement tracks
- you did not build separate retirement security; the marriage used other resources instead
- assets that could have become your retirement base — including the BTC — were depleted into the household and Snow Day
- once the inheritance arrived, you began winding Snow Day down and shifted toward living on the allowance stream
- the allowance entered the marital cash-flow system, not a sealed-off world on Lisa’s side
- if the inheritance was `our` retirement security and no unequal split was ever disclosed, then `half` is the natural fairness starting point

The sharp version is:

- `I’m not saying 50% was ever written down. I’m saying that if we planned to use the inheritance for retirement security, and no different split was ever stated, then 50% is the natural fairness baseline.`

The strongest follow-up if challenged is:

- `If not 50%, then what different understanding does Lisa say we were living under, and when was that ever made clear?`

One important limit:
- Missouri law does **not** make `50% of the allowance` an automatic rule. This is a mediation/fairness anchor, not a statutory default.
  Missouri property: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.330+
  Missouri maintenance: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.335

If you want, I can turn this into a short note for your mediation folder.


text: i'd like a new doc - questions i'll be asked.  what questions do you think i'll be asked?  (let's talk before you start documenting)


text:
You’ll probably get three kinds of questions:

- `frame questions`
  - What does “fair” mean to you?
  - What are you actually asking for?
  - What is the core problem you want mediation to solve?

- `challenge questions`
  - Why do you think the inheritance was meant for your retirement?
  - Why San Francisco?
  - Why can’t you rebuild through work?
  - Why isn’t this just a request for support above what is reasonable?

- `specifics questions`
  - What budget are you basing this on?
  - How long do you expect support to last?
  - What do you think Lisa can afford?
  - What are you willing to compromise on?

And then some `stress-test` questions:
- What if Lisa says the inheritance was always hers alone?
- What if she says you never explicitly agreed to share it?
- What if she says you can move somewhere cheaper?
- What if she says she wants fairness too, but not beyond Missouri norms?

My main view:
- the hardest questions will not be about numbers first
- they will be about `premise`, `credibility`, and `symmetry`

So before I document, I think we should decide the shape:
- a simple brainstorm list of likely questions,
- or a more useful sheet: `likely question -> what they mean -> best short answer`

I recommend the second.


text: let's do second.


text:
Right. That’s the useful version.

I’d structure it like this:
- `question`
- `what they really mean`
- `best short answer`
- maybe `danger to avoid`, where needed

I’d group the questions into:
- `fairness / framing`
- `inheritance / retirement`
- `work / earning capacity`
- `San Francisco / location`
- `numbers / budget / duration`
- `compromise / flexibility`

If that matches what you want, I’ll draft it that way.


text: yes please.


text:
Created `records/analysis/2026-03-25_questions_you_will_likely_be_asked.md:1`.

It is structured the way we discussed:
- likely question
- what they really mean
- best short answer

Grouped by:
- fairness / framing
- inheritance / retirement
- work / earning capacity
- San Francisco / rebuilding
- numbers / budget / duration
- symmetry / process

If you want, I can show it now or tighten any of the answers.


text: show it now


text:
```text
**Questions You Will Likely Be Asked In Mediation**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-25 | Status: Working prep note

---

**Purpose**

This note is meant to prepare for the questions most likely to come up in mediation. Each item includes:

- the likely question,
- what the question is really testing,
- and the best short answer to keep the conversation in the right lane.

The goal is not to memorize speeches. The goal is to stay clear, consistent, and grounded under pressure.

---

## Fairness / Framing

**1. What does "fair" mean to you?**

**What they really mean**

They want to know whether "fairness" is a real framework or just a softer label for a high dollar demand.

**Best short answer**

> Fair means an outcome that reflects how the marriage was actually structured and does not leave me financially insecure after twenty years of decisions made in reliance on a shared long-term plan.

---

**2. Are you saying Missouri law should not matter?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing whether your position sounds untethered or unrealistic.

**Best short answer**

> No. I am saying Missouri law is the fallback, but mediation should try to reach what is genuinely fair rather than stopping automatically at the narrowest legal floor.

---

**3. Why are you raising fairness before numbers?**

**What they really mean**

They want to move quickly into budget trimming and concrete limits.

**Best short answer**

> Because the numbers do not make sense until we agree on what problem we are trying to solve and what structure produced it.

---

## Inheritance / Retirement Security

**4. Why do you think Lisa's inheritance was meant for your retirement security?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing the core premise directly.

**Best short answer**

> Because we did not build separate retirement security on independent tracks. We used other resources for the household and Snow Day, and once the inheritance arrived we began transitioning away from active business dependence and toward living on that allowance stream.

---

**5. Did Lisa ever explicitly promise you half of the inheritance?**

**What they really mean**

They want to force the issue into explicit contract language and make the lived understanding disappear.

**Best short answer**

> No, not in explicit contract language. My point is that the marriage operated on a shared financial understanding, and our conduct only makes sense if the inheritance was being treated as our long-term backstop.

---

**6. If the trust was always legally Lisa's, why should it matter here?**

**What they really mean**

They are trying to shift from practical reliance to legal ownership.

**Best short answer**

> Because the question for mediation is not only who legally owned the trust. The question is how we actually organized our lives around it and what fairness requires now that the marriage is ending.

---

**7. Why do you think 50% is fair?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing whether your fairness anchor is principled or arbitrary.

**Best short answer**

> Because if we planned to use the inheritance for retirement security and no unequal split was ever made clear, then half is the natural starting point for a shared retirement structure.

---

**8. What if Lisa says that was only your assumption?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing whether you have an answer to a direct denial.

**Best short answer**

> Then I think she has to explain what different understanding she thinks we were living under, because our financial decisions do not make sense if we were supposedly on separate retirement tracks.

---

## Work / Earning Capacity

**9. Why can't you just go back to work?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing whether your position sounds like avoidance.

**Best short answer**

> I am open to discussing realistic work, but at 56, after an eleven-year gap and major disruption across my fields, work is not a realistic way to rebuild retirement security from scratch.

---

**10. Are you saying you will never work again?**

**What they really mean**

They want to pin you to an absolute statement.

**Best short answer**

> No. I am saying that any realistic work I may be able to do is not enough to solve the long-term financial problem created by the end of this marriage.

---

**11. What do you think your current earning capacity is?**

**What they really mean**

They want a number they can use to reduce support.

**Best short answer**

> I think that needs to be discussed realistically, but whatever number is used, it does not come close to replacing the long-term security the marriage was built around.

---

## San Francisco / Rebuilding

**12. Why San Francisco?**

**What they really mean**

They are testing whether SF is a real rebuilding premise or just a high-cost assumption.

**Best short answer**

> Because that is where my adult life began, where Juno was born, where most of my social and professional contacts still are, and where my last true non-self-employed job was at Linden Lab.

---

**13. Why not move somewhere cheaper?**

**What they really mean**

They are trying to substitute lowest-cost survival for realistic rebuilding.

**Best short answer**

> Because the question is not the cheapest place I could theoretically exist. The question is where I can most realistically rebuild stability, community, and professional footing.

---

**14. Isn't San Francisco just a preference?**

**What they really mean**

They are trying to downgrade the location premise into taste.

**Best short answer**

> No. It becomes a fairness issue the moment support numbers and work assumptions depend on location. The location premise has to be realistic or the numbers will be distorted from the start.

---

## Numbers / Budget / Duration

**15. What are you actually asking for?**

**What they really mean**

They want to force a concrete ask before the premise is settled.

**Best short answer**

> The simple answer is that I want a fair approximation of the long-term financial security I reasonably expected to have if the marriage had continued.

---

**16. What budget are you using?**

**What they really mean**

They want to move from principle into cost line-items.

**Best short answer**

> I can provide a budget, but I think that discussion has to be grounded in a realistic location premise and should be symmetrical, with Lisa's budget on the table too.

---

**17. How long do you think support should last?**

**What they really mean**

They want to pin down duration and expose whether you are asking for something open-ended.

**Best short answer**

> I am open to discussing structure and duration. My main point is that the resolution has to provide real long-term security rather than just short-term monthly survival.

---

**18. What are you willing to compromise on?**

**What they really mean**

They want to know whether you are rigid.

**Best short answer**

> I am flexible about structure. I am less flexible about the outcome needing to actually solve the retirement-security problem.

---

## Symmetry / Process

**19. Why should Lisa provide her budget too?**

**What they really mean**

They may be testing whether your symmetry argument is procedural or substantive.

**Best short answer**

> Because fairness cannot be evaluated one-sidedly. If my needs are being scrutinized, hers should be too.

---

**20. Why should Lisa's work expectations matter if you are the one asking for support?**

**What they really mean**

They are trying to keep the work inquiry focused only on you.

**Best short answer**

> Because we have both effectively been retired since 2022, and if future work is part of the fairness analysis, it should be part of the analysis for both of us.

---

## Anchor Rule

When answering, keep returning to the same core structure:

- long integrated marriage,
- no separate retirement build,
- shared expectation that the inheritance would provide long-term security,
- other resources depleted inside that structure,
- wind-down of active business once the inheritance arrived,
- and the need for a fair outcome that actually solves the retirement-security problem.

Do not drift into:

- claiming legal ownership of the trust,
- overexplaining every supporting fact before it is challenged,
- or jumping into detailed numbers before the premises are established.

---

*This note is a working mediation prep sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```