# Lisa transcript # Range: 2026-03-10 through 2026-03-13 # Source: records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl 2026-03-10 09:57 Karl: I have four practical follow-ups. First, I need payment for the personal expenses on the Apple Card from this period. Second, for symmetry, please send me your personal expenses for the same period as well so we’re tracking this the same way on both sides. Third, can you tell me what the current Garcia balance is? I want to understand exactly what remains outstanding there. Fourth, Sarah gave me these three mediator names. Would you pick one, or let me know if you have a preference among them? Allison Gerli 314-721-8844 agerli@thecenterforfamilylaw.com Jennifer Piper 314-449-9900 jennifer@familyally.com Elaine Pudlowski 314-725-8000 epudlowski@frankelrubin.com 2026-03-10 10:13 Lisa: Yes - I also had a couple of practical questions as I’m trying to understand what the monthly picture might look like going forward. I noticed that about $1,400 of the recent spending was software subscriptions and hardware purchases. Do you expect those to be ongoing expenses, or were those mostly one-time things? I’m also trying to understand how the housing situation with your mom might work in practice. Right now the assisted living cost is around $5,800/month, and you had mentioned something like $3,000/month for an apartment. If you end up living in the same place as your mom, would that change those numbers at all, or would the assisted living costs stay roughly the same? 2026-03-10 10:27 Karl: On the computer/software side: about $900 of that was the one-time repair for my broken laptop screen, so that should not repeat. On the OpenAI side, I’ve optimized my usage, so that number should come down materially from what you saw in this period. That said, I do expect there will still be several hundred dollars per month in AI/software expense going forward. On my mom’s situation: the new apartment is $2,000/month, and we have not yet added any additional assistance, so at the moment that may be the full monthly number. That is substantially less than Discovery Village. Also, while I’m staying with her, I won’t have separate housing expenses of my own. 2026-03-10 10:27 Lisa: Liked “On the computer/software side: about $900 of that was the one-time repair for my broken laptop screen, so that should not repeat. On the OpenAI side, I’ve optimized my usage, so that number should come down materially from what you saw in this period. That said, I do expect there will still be several hundred dollars per month in AI/software expense going forward. On my mom’s situation: the new apartment is $2,000/month, and we have not yet added any additional assistance, so at the moment that may be the full monthly number. That is substantially less than Discovery Village. Also, while I’m staying with her, I won’t have separate housing expenses of my own.” 2026-03-10 14:14 Lisa: Go ahead and take that cash from the Cap One account. The current balance there is $69,442.50. I’ve attached a spreadsheet showing the household expenses, the additional Karl-specific expenses, rent for your mom, and Juno’s and my discretionary expenses. Let me know if you have questions. I still haven’t received the Garcia numbers yet, but I’ve requested them again and will pass them along when I have them. Allison Gerli was recommended to me as well, so I’m fine with moving forward with her. 2026-03-10 14:15 Lisa:  [attachment] 2026-03-10 14:21 Lisa:  [attachment] 2026-03-10 15:52 Karl: Thank you — the numbers are helpful. And thank you for following up on Garcia. Since Allison Gerli was recommended to both of us, would you be willing to reach out to her about next steps and let me know what she says? 2026-03-10 16:08 Karl: Thank you for sending the spreadsheet. One thing I’m still concerned about is the renovation side of the picture. As I mentioned before, Garcia has a history of running well over budget, so not having current numbers from them yet leaves a real gap in how I’m understanding our exposure. Without an updated balance and a clearer sense of what remains, it’s hard for me to evaluate the monthly picture with any confidence. Could you also clarify whether the renovation work is still actively ongoing? And when you get the update from Garcia, please send over the current balance along with any estimate they provide for what is still outstanding. 2026-03-10 16:56 Lisa: I’m concerned about it too - I’ll send it as soon as I get it. And yes, renovations are still happening - plumbing has just completed fully, electrics are in, waiting on approval on the framing (tomorrow) then drywall can happen. The bathtub is in as well. 2026-03-10 16:58 Lisa: I’m expecting the last amount we will need pay will be around $25k, as expected. 2026-03-10 16:58 Lisa: Liked “Thank you — the numbers are helpful. And thank you for following up on Garcia. Since Allison Gerli was recommended to both of us, would you be willing to reach out to her about next steps and let me know what she says?” 2026-03-10 17:16 Lisa: Just sent an email to Allison and copied you. 2026-03-10 17:30 Karl: I understand your estimate is that the remaining amount will be around $25k. What I need to know is whether Garcia has actually been told that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. If they have, did they acknowledge that? If they have not, that concerns me, because otherwise the project is still effectively open-ended. 2026-03-10 18:09 Lisa: I’ll talk about that specifically with Adam. 2026-03-10 18:13 Karl: Thank you. That’s helpful. What I’m trying to clarify is not just the estimate itself, but whether Adam understands that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. When you speak with him, please let me know what he says. 2026-03-10 18:14 Lisa: Yes I understand what you’re asking and will do. 2026-03-11 10:27 Karl: I want to say something clearly about where I am. I remain extremely worried about my financial situation, and that uncertainty is itself a serious burden on me. I know you previously said that I would not end up on the street, and I heard that. I also remember your saying that, while I was carrying so much with my mom, divorce-related matters would naturally be on pause on your end. But the financial uncertainty has not been on pause for me. It has continued to weigh on me very heavily, and I would really appreciate moving to something concrete as quickly as possible. At this point, reassurance by itself is not enough for me. I need this resolved in actuality, not just in principle, because I no longer feel able to rely on informal trust alone. You are in a much stronger position than I am right now, and I would appreciate it if you would use that position to help reduce this instability for me rather than let it continue unresolved. To help move things along, I’d like to send you the letter I plan to send Allison so you can see exactly how I’m framing the issues and prepare your side as efficiently as possible. My goal in doing that is simply to help us move faster toward something real and stable. 2026-03-11 10:29 Karl: Lisa and I married in 2005 and were together for more than twenty years. This was not a marriage of two financially independent people who happened to share a home. It was a fully integrated economic partnership, and the major financial decisions we made reflected that. For most of the marriage, I was the primary income provider. Over time, we did not build conventional retirement savings. Instead, marital resources went into the household and into Snow Day, the custom 3D snow globe business we built together. Early in the marriage, I purchased approximately 300 BTC with marital funds, and that asset was ultimately liquidated to support the household and sustain us through the years we were building the business. These were not unilateral decisions. They were made jointly, and they were made within a shared understanding that Lisa's inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us. I am not challenging the trust principal or arguing over later appreciation. I am trying to explain why resources that might otherwise have become my retirement security were instead invested in our marriage and our shared future. I have been underemployed since 2017. Since Lisa's mother died in 2022, we have both effectively been retired. I am now 56 years old with no meaningful retirement savings and no realistic path to building them from scratch. The time simply is not there, and re-entering the job market at this stage would not come close to solving the long-term financial problem now in front of me. Lisa has a trust of approximately $5 million and receives roughly $19,000 per month in distributions. I am not seeking to challenge the classification of the trust principal. But the monthly distribution stream is the only stable, predictable financial foundation available for structuring a settlement that can provide durable security, and any serious conversation about resolution has to begin there. I also want to be direct about how this ending has affected me. I pushed repeatedly for us to confront serious issues in therapy. I do not feel that I was given meaningful notice that the marriage was over or a genuine opportunity to address what needed to be addressed before that decision was made. I did not understand things to be ending in a way that would have allowed me to protect myself financially. That is an important part of why I now find myself financially exposed at 56 with no clear path forward. My core concern is retirement security, and I want to be clear that I am not pursuing a punitive outcome. But I am also not willing to come out of a twenty-year marriage financially insecure after making major financial decisions in good faith based on expectations Lisa and I both shared. I am hopeful mediation can produce a fair structure for support and long-term security that avoids that result. I strongly prefer resolution over litigation. If this process can arrive at a fair structure for support, security, and an orderly unwinding of financial issues, I am fully committed to that path. But the settlement has to actually solve the problem. 2026-03-11 10:29 Lisa: Absolutely. I was thinking that putting things on pause would be helpful for you while you are caring for your mom. But if that’s the wrong direction for you, I totally understand and we can get things moving. 2026-03-12 08:37 Karl: I need to follow up on two things because both are time-sensitive for me. First, on Garcia: the renovation is still actively ongoing, and every day that passes without a clear cap creates more exposure. On Tuesday you said you would speak with Adam specifically about whether he understands that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. Have you had that conversation, and if so, what did he say? Second, on Allison: moving mediation forward remains a high priority for me. You told me on Tuesday that you had emailed her and copied me. A full work day has now passed, so I wanted to ask whether you’ve heard anything back from her yet. I’m asking about both because I’m trying to reduce open-ended cost and financial uncertainty as quickly as possible. 2026-03-12 08:40 Lisa: Adam is “working on it” - I told him that you specifically were asking me for the balance so he knows it’s important - I’ll talk to him when he gives me the numbers, or before. And I have not heard back from Allison yet. I’m assuming that we will both hear back at the same time because you were copied on the email. 2026-03-12 08:43 Lisa: Not to pile more onto the list, but I’ve been thinking about Snow Day and the office space, and I think that’s another area we’ll need to talk through at some point. 2026-03-12 08:51 Karl: Thanks for the update. On Garcia, I need to be direct: we first discussed treating the $25k as a hard cap on February 27, and I have raised it several times since. The renovation is still actively ongoing, and I still do not have confirmation that Adam or Garcia has actually been told that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. That should not wait until the numbers arrive. Please communicate that to Adam now and ask him to confirm that Garcia understands it. On Allison, since we still have not heard back, I think we should move on to another mediator rather than lose more time here. If you agree, I suggest we reach out to Jennifer Piper next. And on Snow Day / office space, I think we should move quickly to stop carrying office overhead. My view is that we should wind the business down, give up both the Snow Day office and my personal studio, and move the contents of both into storage rather than continue paying for space we may not need. That seems like the cleanest and most cost-conscious path. 2026-03-12 09:00 Lisa:  [attachment] 2026-03-12 09:04 Karl: Thank you for sending that. I appreciate your following through with Adam. The only concern I have is that “under $25k if possible” and “cap for now” still leave the door open. What I need communicated is more explicit: that $25k is the authorization limit on the remaining work, and that no work beyond that should proceed without explicit prior agreement from both of us. Could you send that clarification to him as well? 2026-03-12 09:05 Lisa: I hear what you’re saying, but I’m comfortable with the way I worded it and I’m going to handle the communication with Adam myself. I don’t want to keep going back and refining messages after they’re sent. I’ll keep you updated on the numbers as we get them. 2026-03-12 09:07 Karl: Understood. Then I want to be explicit on my side: I do not authorize remaining renovation work above $25k, and I do not agree to any work beyond that without explicit prior agreement from both of us. Please proceed with Adam and Garcia on that basis, and let me know immediately if he indicates the remaining work will exceed that limit. 2026-03-12 09:11 Lisa: I understand your position on the $25k limit. I’m continuing to work with Adam to get the updated numbers, and we can review them together before any additional work is approved. I’m not going to manage this as unilateral authorizations on either side. 2026-03-12 09:13 Karl: My concern is not future additions to scope. My concern is that the work already underway may itself exceed $25k. So when you get the updated numbers, I need clarity on whether the currently authorized scope can actually be completed within that limit. If Adam already expects the existing scope to run over it, I need to know that immediately. 2026-03-12 09:14 Lisa: I know. 2026-03-12 09:18 Lisa: I’m looking at what it would actually take to shut down the offices, and I’m not sure yet that it’s worth the cost and effort, especially once moving, storage, and the printer are factored in. At $800/month total, it may make more sense to do this slowly rather than rush it. If you have a chance to look into options on your side too, that might help us decide what makes the most sense. I would love to figure out a way to sell the printer. 2026-03-12 09:19 Lisa: I’ll send an identical email out to the remaining mediators on the list. 2026-03-12 09:22 Karl: Thank you for reaching out to the remaining mediators. On the printer specifically, I want to set expectations clearly: as long as my financial stability is unresolved, and while I’m caring for my mom in hospice, I probably will not have the time or bandwidth to take on finding a buyer for it. If selling it is something we want to pursue in the near term, that will likely need to be led from your side, or else deferred until things are more stable. 2026-03-12 12:06 Lisa: I’m putting out some feelers - I’ll let you know if I hear anything. 2026-03-12 15:26 Lisa: I wanted to mention a couple things about the trust that I’ve discussed with the trust lawyers, just to give you a clearer picture. One thing I’ve been looking into is the possibility that I might want to buy the house, and whether trust funds could be used for that. Matt sounded a little cautious about it — not saying no, but that it might need to be structured carefully and may not be as simple as just taking a distribution. The other thing he raised was how distributions can be used for support. He said some of what I receive is considered principal and some is income, and that distinction can matter, so he wanted to be careful about assuming the trust can automatically be used for everything. From my side I don’t have a problem using my distributions to help support both of us if that ends up being part of the agreement, but it sounds like we should understand the rules before we rely on that. I’m continuing to talk with Matt about this so we have a clearer sense of what’s actually possible before mediation. 2026-03-12 16:04 Karl: Thanks for the trust update. Could you please ask Matt for clarification on the practical implications of the income vs principal distinction and any constraints on how your allowance can be used for support, and share whatever summary you’re comfortable sharing? I’d like us to have that clarity so we can proceed with mediation without relying on assumptions. 2026-03-12 16:06 Lisa: Yes - that’s what I’m talking to Matt about. Also - here is the invoice for Garcia - it’s $25,768. Adam says if he needs to do any work that exceeds $1500 more, he will get approval first.  [attachment] 2026-03-12 17:16 Karl: Thanks. When you have Matt’s clarification, please share whatever summary you’re comfortable sharing so we can proceed with mediation without relying on assumptions. 2026-03-12 17:17 Lisa: Here’s a bit about why a lawyer is still necessary even when we are mediating. [attachment] 2026-03-12 17:18 Lisa: Liked “Thanks. When you have Matt’s clarification, please share whatever summary you’re comfortable sharing so we can proceed with mediation without relying on assumptions. ” 2026-03-12 17:23 Lisa: I’m also starting to look into life insurance policies. Since that’s your request, and really about what level of protection you would want, it would be helpful if you could look into that on your side so we’re not relying on me to guess what makes sense. 2026-03-12 17:36 Karl: FYI: Allison’s office called me — they aren’t available until the end of the month. I’m ok waiting on mediation if we can align informally on the broad settlement framework we’ve been discussing, so I’m not sitting in limbo while I’m caregiving. Are you open to that? 2026-03-12 17:42 Karl: On life insurance: I want to clarify what risk I’m actually trying to cover. The only scenario where I’m exposed is if both you and Juno are gone. If Juno would continue the support arrangement if something happened to you, then I don’t think we need a life insurance policy on you alone. 2026-03-12 18:07 Karl: To clarify: if you’re comfortable making an informal agreement now around the broad framework we’ve been discussing, I’m happy to wait until the end of the month for Alison. If you’re thinking of making substantial changes to that baseline, then I think we should use a mediator who can take us sooner so we’re not drifting in limbo. 2026-03-12 19:09 Lisa: Are you still planning to keep the appointment with the lawyer you mentioned? I think it would probably help to have a clearer sense on both sides of what the legal baseline looks like, so we know what we’re working from as we talk about a settlement. It was helpful for me to talk it through in the appt I had. 2026-03-12 19:12 Karl: Yes — I’ve now spoken with two lawyers. I don’t have any further meetings scheduled unless I put down a $5k retainer, so for now I already have a clearer sense of the legal baseline. 2026-03-12 19:15 Lisa: On the life insurance point, I think we should assume that any maintenance would come from me, and not from Juno, and I don’t want to base any plan on the idea that they would continue support if something happened to me. I think whatever we agree on should stand on its own between the two of us. 2026-03-12 19:17 Karl: That’s fine — I understand the logic. But if the agreement has to stand entirely on its own between the two of us, then the life insurance piece becomes more important and the amount would likely need to be substantially higher, which in turn raises the cost. We should keep that in mind as we think about what structure makes the most sense. 2026-03-12 19:24 Karl: If there is some larger concern, constraint, or position shaping how you’re thinking about settlement, I would much rather you just say it directly. It’s hard for me to evaluate this when things come out one piece at a time. 2026-03-12 19:27 Lisa: Got it. I understand what you’re saying, but this is also why I’m hesitant to lock in a framework informally before we have clearer information. Once we start adjusting things like life insurance, support, and structure based on assumptions, the numbers can move around a lot, and I don’t think either of us really knows yet what the legal or practical limits are. I wasn’t planning to work all of this out outside of mediation, and I don’t think it’s really up to either of us alone to decide what’s fair — usually there are legal guidelines that shape that. Since you mentioned you’ve spoken with lawyers and have a sense of the baseline, it would help me to understand what you’re actually envisioning in terms of work, retirement, support, and life insurance, and what assumptions you’re using. I’m also happy to share what I was told when I spoke with a lawyer, so we’re both working from real information rather than guesses. 2026-03-12 19:30 Karl: I have repeatedly shared my position with you. It is the same position I’ve shared with every lawyer I’ve spoken with and with the mediator. I’m not working from some separate private framework on my side. 2026-03-12 19:34 Lisa: I understand that you’ve been consistent about your position, and I’m not suggesting you’re working from a different framework. What I’m trying to understand better are the assumptions behind it, especially around duration of support and long-term planning. For example, I don’t think I fully understand what you’re expecting in terms of work going forward, when you see yourself retiring, or what level of income or assets you feel you need by then. Those things make a big difference in how support and life insurance would be structured, and when I spoke with a lawyer the general guidance I got was that maintenance is usually considered transitional, not indefinite, so I want to make sure we’re talking about the same kind of time horizon. That’s why I’ve been asking these questions — not because I think you’re changing your position, but because I’m trying to understand how the numbers you have in mind fit with your long-term plan. 2026-03-12 19:39 Karl: That’s fair. The core assumption behind my position is that I do not see a realistic path to rebuilding retirement from scratch at 56, especially after the financial structure we operated under for so long. So I’m not thinking in terms of short-term transitional support that ends after a few years. I’m thinking in terms of long-term security. On work: I’m not assuming I will never work again, and I’m not trying to avoid self-support. But I also don’t think it would be realistic to base a settlement on the assumption that I can generate enough income at this stage to solve the underlying problem. If I do create stable income later, that can be taken into account. My point is that I don’t think optimism about future work should be the foundation of the plan. On retirement and assets: my concern is not reaching some arbitrary number. It’s making sure I do not come out of this marriage financially exposed and trying to build security from near zero at this stage of life. That is why I’ve been focused on a structure that is durable rather than merely transitional. 2026-03-12 19:41 Karl: And just to add one thing: the fairness issue for me is straightforward. We structured our financial lives around assumptions we both shared, and I do not think it is fair for me to come out of a twenty-year marriage with no retirement security while you retain the income stream we were both planning around. That is the imbalance I am trying to address. 2026-03-12 19:48 Lisa: I’m not opposed to thinking about this as more than just short-term transitional support. I understand your point about long-term security, and I agree that the way our finances were structured during the marriage matters. At the same time, if the goal is to make sure you have retirement security, then it seems like the structure should be based on building toward that over a defined period of time — for example, looking at when you expect to retire, what level of assets you would need by then, and how a settlement could realistically get you there — rather than assuming an open-ended arrangement where support just continues indefinitely as income. That’s why I’ve been asking about your plans and what you think you need long-term. I’m not trying to argue the principle, I’m trying to understand what a structure would look like that actually makes sense. 2026-03-12 19:50 Karl: That makes sense. If there is a defined structure that actually gets me to real long-term security, I’m open to looking at it. My concern is that at 56, starting from near zero, the amount required to do that may be large enough that a simple ongoing structure is actually the cleaner and more realistic solution. I’m not attached to complexity; I’m attached to not ending up financially exposed. 2026-03-12 19:52 Lisa: I hear that, and I understand why you’re focused on not ending up exposed. I’m not opposed to looking at a structure that’s aimed at long-term security, but if that’s the goal, then I think we need to look at it in concrete terms — things like when you see yourself retiring, what level of assets you think you would need by then, and how a settlement could realistically get you there. If the numbers end up being large, that’s something we can look at, but I don’t think we should assume from the start that an open-ended support structure is the only realistic solution without first understanding what the actual target is. Otherwise we’re talking about security in the abstract rather than designing something that actually accomplishes it. 2026-03-12 19:55 Karl: To answer your question more directly: I would like to retire at 67. And the level of security I’m trying to preserve is a retirement income stream roughly equivalent to what we had implicitly agreed upon during the marriage. That is the benchmark I’m using when I think about what a fair structure would look like. 2026-03-12 19:56 Lisa: That helps, thank you — having an actual retirement age and a benchmark makes it easier to think about this in concrete terms. If the goal is to get you to retirement at around 67 with a level of security similar to what we expected during the marriage, then it seems like the next step would be to look at what that actually means numerically — what level of income or assets that would require, and how many years we’re talking about to get there. From my perspective, that’s why I’ve been thinking in terms of a structure that builds toward retirement over a defined period, rather than assuming an open-ended support arrangement from the start. If the numbers show that the amount needed is larger than we expected, we can look at that, but I think it makes more sense to work from an actual target than from the assumption that ongoing support is the only way to get there. 2026-03-12 19:59 Karl: Then let’s run those numbers. You can ask ChatGPT just as easily as I can. With only about 10 years until 67, high inflation, and my realistically limited earning capacity at this stage, I do not think the numbers are going to point to some small transitional solution. I may work, but I am not assuming I can generate the kind of income that would solve the retirement problem. Realistically, I’m looking at something closer to a job at Trader Joe’s than a return to substantial earning power. That is exactly why I’ve been focused on a structure that actually gets me to security, rather than one that assumes future work will bridge the gap. 2026-03-12 20:12 Lisa: I’m fine with running the numbers, but to do that we need a clearer target. When you say retirement security similar to what we expected during the marriage, that could mean a lot of different things depending on what level of income or assets you’re thinking about. For example, what kind of annual income in retirement are you using as the benchmark, or what level of assets would feel secure to you at 67? Without that, it’s hard to actually calculate what the gap is or what kind of structure would make sense to get there. 2026-03-12 20:16 Lisa: I want to be honest about something that’s also shaping how I’m thinking about this. In the conversations I’ve had with lawyers so far, the consistent guidance has been that what you’re describing would likely be viewed as more than what a court would typically order, especially in terms of duration and overall level of support. I’m not saying that to argue with you, but it does make me hesitant to assume a structure that goes beyond what’s usually considered reasonable without really working through the numbers carefully or having mediation involved. That’s part of why I keep coming back to wanting an actual target and a defined plan if the goal is retirement security. If we can see what the numbers really look like, then we can talk about what’s possible, but I don’t feel comfortable just assuming an open-ended solution based on worst-case assumptions. 2026-03-12 20:19 Karl: Then let me ask the question directly from the other direction: what level of retirement income do you think would be fair for me? 2026-03-12 20:21 Lisa: It seems like you’ve already thought about this quite a bit and probably have a number in mind, since you’ve mentioned a benchmark based on what we expected during the marriage and you’ve talked with lawyers about it. I don’t feel like I have enough information yet to pick a retirement income number for you, especially without knowing what assumptions you’re using. If we’re going to run the numbers, it would help to know what level of annual income or total assets you’re actually aiming for at retirement, so we’re working from the same target rather than me guessing at one. 2026-03-12 20:24 Karl: My assumption has been that, during the marriage, we were implicitly planning on sharing your retirement income. If we’re talking about what would be equitable, I think the starting point is 50%. 2026-03-12 20:28 Karl: It may be that the law favors the party in the stronger financial position. If you want to rely on that, you can. But I want to be clear that I would not consider that fair. 2026-03-12 20:38 Karl: At the end of the day, you are going to have to decide for yourself what you think is fair. There really is no way around that. Please work that out. 2026-03-12 20:46 Lisa: This conversation is starting to feel like a lot of pressure, and I don’t think it’s productive to keep going right now. I’m going to pause here and come back to this later. 2026-03-12 21:00 Karl: I don’t mean to pressure you. Please just try to understand that this is extremely important to me. I’ll wait for your response. 2026-03-12 21:03 Lisa: I want to be clear about where I’m coming from, because 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, including me and Juno, not just what feels secure from your side. To do that, I need to understand what you’re actually asking for in concrete terms — what you think you need, what your plan is going forward, and what level of retirement security you’re aiming for. Without that, I feel like I’m being asked to make a fairness decision in the abstract, and I’m not comfortable doing that. 2026-03-12 21:06 Karl: One possible suggestion, when you’re ready to come back to this: it might be helpful to reach out to Blythe and get her feedback. 2026-03-12 21:12 Lisa: I don’t think it’s appropriate to bring Blythe into this. If we need input, we should do that through a mediator rather than through friends. This has been a long conversation and I’m hoping to come back to it in the next few days with a fresh outlook. 2026-03-12 21:18 Lisa: One last thing: You’ve said a few times that you’ve spoken with lawyers and know what the baseline looks like. I think it would be helpful for me to hear, at least in general terms, what they told you, because right now it feels like we may be working from different ideas about what’s realistic. 2026-03-12 21:20 Karl: I’m getting mixed signals. Do you want to pause this conversation for a few days, or do you want to continue it now? 2026-03-12 21:23 Karl: In general terms, they were extremely sympathetic to my situation. 2026-03-13 07:16 Karl: I just wanted to let you know that, given the concerns you raised about realism, I’ve retained Sarah Wittrock to advise me during the mediation process so I can have clearer guidance as we work through this. 2026-03-13 07:32 Lisa: Honestly, parts of this conversation are starting to feel manipulative to me. I also notice that some of the things I’m asking aren’t getting addressed, especially when I’ve asked more than once what calculations you’re using, while other parts of the discussion keep moving forward. When that happens it starts to feel suspicious, and it makes it hard for me to feel like we’re actually working this out together in a straightforward way. If it’s going to feel like this, I would rather wait and go through these issues with a mediator. If we can slow things down and keep the focus on being open, fair, and transparent on both sides, I’m willing to keep talking, but not when it feels like pressure instead of problem-solving. 2026-03-13 07:39 Karl: I believe I have already been clear about the numbers. But to reiterate: my position is that 50% of what I understood would be available to us for retirement is the equitable amount. 2026-03-13 07:44 Lisa: I’m going to be more direct, because this conversation is starting to feel frustrating. You’ve said 30% and life insurance, but I still don’t have the actual calculations behind that. I only just learned yesterday that you’re planning to retire at 67, only just learned what you think you can earn going forward, and I still don’t know what level of retirement income you’re actually aiming for or how much life insurance you think you need. At the same time, you keep asking me what I think is fair, or suggesting that this comes down to my view of fairness or the courts. That puts me in a position I don’t think is appropriate. I’m not the one setting a number for you. If you’re asking for a specific structure based on retirement security, then I need to see the numbers and assumptions you’re using to get there. Right now it feels like you’re giving me the conclusion but not the math, and then asking me to agree to it. That’s not something I’m comfortable doing. I want to be clear that I am very willing to make sure you’re taken care of, and I’ve already agreed that the basic framework we discussed is a reasonable starting point. But at this stage I need the actual details behind what you’re asking for before I can go any further. 2026-03-13 07:47 Karl: I think we should save this conversation for the mediator. 2026-03-13 07:49 Lisa: That’s totally fine. Could you share why a cost breakdown is not something you want to give me? 2026-03-13 07:51 Karl: For clarity, I’m basing my position on the marital standard of living.