I appreciate you saying that. I agree it would be a shame to spend that much on legal fees if we can work out the basic structure ourselves.

I’m open to using those general parameters as a starting framework for discussion, but I’m not comfortable resuming substantive financial discussion while the postnuptial/fairness question is being left unanswered. It still goes directly to basic fairness for me: whether, if the financial imbalance had been addressed while the marriage was intact, you would have agreed it should be corrected.

When information that is directly relevant to basic fairness is being withheld, I don’t think that’s a cooperative basis for substantive financial discussion. If you’re willing to answer that directly, I think it would help. If not, then I think we should treat it as a question for counsel while still seeing whether the broader framework can be worked out directly.

I’m still with my mom and may be slow, but I wanted to respond.