jesus christ.


you continue to amaze me.


and while i’m pissed - i’d also like to point out to you that you’ve never apologized.


We have talked about what happened that day. And Richard’s been super worried about you. I was too.


you guys have a super funny way of showing it.


now stop.


Going forward, if you or anyone else is genuinely worried about me, the first step should be to come to me directly. Talking about me with other people first and then presenting me with their conclusions is not care. It is a way of keeping me at a distance while still claiming concern.


When I say you’ve never apologized, I’m not talking about one isolated moment. I mean that you’ve never acknowledged the actual scale of the damage you’ve done.

You’ve never apologized for ending this marriage the way you did, or for denying me meaningful notice and any real chance to respond before your decision was already effectively made.

You’ve never apologized for leaving me financially exposed after we built our lives around assumptions we shared and choices we made together.

You’ve never apologized for turning me into someone to be discussed with other people instead of someone to be spoken to directly — analyzed, compared notes on, and then presented with conclusions as if that were concern.

You’ve never apologized for doing this while my mother is dying and I am carrying that burden, because from my side that was abandonment at the moment I was most overwhelmed and least able to withstand it.

And at the deepest level, you’ve never apologized for breaking your wedding vows.


And the next time you or anyone else wonders why I’m so angry, consider the possibility that my anger is a rational response to what you have done and how you have conducted yourself.


I’m sad that this has hurt you.


This is exactly the pattern I mean when I talk about avoidance. You acknowledge that I’m hurt, but you avoid addressing responsibility, agency, or the actual substance of what I said.


Before I talk with my lawyer again, I want to confirm what you had proposed regarding your mom’s care. At one point you mentioned a percentage-based idea, and I want to make sure I understand what you had in mind.


What I had in mind was that my mom’s care should be modeled explicitly as a finite obligation, separate from the rest of the support discussion, rather than left vague.

In other words, I was not proposing that her care just be assumed to fit inside some other number. I was proposing that it be treated as its own specifically budgeted piece of the model.

At this point, her current need has fallen to about $1,000/month.

If you want to discuss the exact current numbers for her care, I’m happy to clarify those. But I don’t want to keep negotiating broader support structure by text.


Understood about not negotiating broader support structure by text. I’m just asking for a reminder of what you had proposed regarding your mom’s care so I have it clear before I speak with my lawyer. No worries if that’s not an option any longer.

I understand you were thinking of her care as a finite obligation, which makes sense. For purposes of planning, I was trying to understand what the current monthly amount actually is, since that affects what I need to account for month to month. The numbers we discussed earlier were quite different, so I just wanted to make sure I have the current figure right. Thanks.


Understood. For current month-to-month planning, the number to use right now is about $1,000/month.

The earlier higher numbers reflected a different arrangement. This is the current figure as things stand now. If that changes because her care needs change, I’ll let you know.


Also, hospice’s current indication is that Mom likely has about a month left. I wanted you to have that context as well.


I’m still not actually sure what you meant by “I’m sad that this has hurt you.”

Going forward, I’d appreciate it if you could be more explicit in your messages. Very short replies like that, or “Your budget,” leave too much unstated and end up being hard to understand.


My best guess is that you do feel remorse, but you are withholding an actual apology because you do not want to admit fault while we are in the middle of a legal process.


But there are other, less charitable interpretations too. It would be helpful if you could clarify what you mean so I don’t have to guess.


I do have a lot of feelings about all of this, and I feel awful for how you’ve been hurt. I’m not sure that text is a great place for me too go into more depth with it. And I’m not sure that anything that I could write would make it better.


Well, I appreciate you explaining that much. Like I said, there were other interpretations that made me feel especially horrible, so that is a relief.


Regarding the Richard audio, I’m still having a hard time understanding why, when I said in all seriousness that it was not funny, he kept laughing. That was one of the direct questions I asked him, and he never answered it. If he wants to answer that question now, I would genuinely appreciate it.


I’ll be staying out of that. :/


That’s fine. But if that’s the case, I wish you hadn’t brought it up in the first place.


I’m staying out of it because you specifically told me to stay out of it


And I regret bringing it up


Ok. Thanks for explaining. I didn’t understand what you meant, again.


Liked “Ok. Thanks for explaining. I didn’t understand what you meant, again.
”


I want to ask one more thing, and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. Do you understand why the Richard thing upset me so much, or do you think I’m overreacting?


It reminds me very strongly of the time I lived with Chris and Jen, when after a fight they got together and decided I must be crazy for being angry with them. I’ve told you that story before, and you seemed to understand why it was so upsetting. So I’m hoping you can understand why this felt so similar to me.


To me, that is a particularly horrible form of gaslighting: taking someone who is legitimately angry with you and dismissing them as crazy instead of engaging with what they are actually saying.


Let me get back to you tomorrow. I’m going to sleep right now.


Ok. Talk tomorrow.


One additional records request: could you please send me the SLCCU statements through March 2023, before the trust was switched to a unitrust in April 2023?


They only go back as far as 8/31/24


Thanks for checking on that. I’ll stop by next week and get them myself.


Are we sharing our mediation questionnaires with each other?


sure - if you like.  i didn’t make that much change.


corrected the SLCCU thing to say i’m on the account.


fixed snowday percentages to 43%/43%.


I would guess that  your living expenses would be much different in the first form. For instance, your travel, your dental surgery, etc.


Also we should probably add 12000 annually  for snow day


I don’t think my current expenses are representative of what they’ll be going forward, so it didn’t seem especially relevant to list them in detail.


Ok. Would you mind if I make that clear to the mediator?


Has she asked?


No but ^^^


If she asks me, I’ll explain it. Please don’t speak on my behalf.


I’ll write to her right now and explain it myself.


That’d be great. And I wouldn’t speak on your behalf. I would only make clear that these were Juno’s and my living expenses and not yours.


One thing that I’m not sure Jennifer understands completely, is that you are asking not for transitional support for your living expenses, but for money that would be used solely for retirement. I think I have that right, at least.


I’ve already explained the situation to Jennifer. What I need to know is whether she wants the current numbers or the forward-looking numbers. That was the question I was trying to get answered, and I’m still not sure why it hasn’t been answered directly.


Liked “I’ve already explained the situation to Jennifer. What I need to know is whether she wants the current numbers or the forward-looking numbers. That was the question I was trying to get answered, and I’m still not sure why it hasn’t been answered directly.
”


This worries me. I think I asked very clearly and still didn’t get an answer.


Well, she hasn’t responded yet to your follow-up email


I’ve been talking with my lawyer, and this question keeps coming up.

Her warning to me is that Missouri law may not protect me, and that I need to come to terms with that possibility. My response has been that my hope is Lisa will not insist on the Missouri floor, and will instead genuinely look at what is fair.

You’ve said things that support that. But you’ve also said that your lawyers’ guidance is that what I’m asking for is more than a court would typically order, and that this makes you hesitant.

I know I’ve asked some version of this before and haven’t really gotten an answer, but I’m asking again in the hope that we can discuss it directly: are you willing to pursue what you believe is genuinely fair even if it goes beyond what a court would typically order, or is that court-based limit effectively your ceiling?


I’m not trying to corner you or trick you. I just want to understand where you actually are on this.


Put differently: are you comfortable discussing fairness from first principles in mediation, rather than treating existing law as the starting boundary, or do you want the legal framework brought into the discussion from the outset?


For example, if the frame is Missouri law, then as I understand it there may be little or no retirement protection available to me. If that is the framework we’re going to use, there may not be much I can do about it. But I would like to know that before we get to mediation.


Basically, my plan is to understand what Juno and I need, what you need, what the state says, what the trust says, where the compromises might be, and how we can make it work. And to be as fair as we can be. I’m not going to fuck you over. I’m not a dick and neither are you.


My task is to figure out if I can handle paying you 30%, paying the household stuff plus Juno and me, and your mom, with no savings left.


Plus paying for a life insurance policy and probably half off the equity in the house to you.


Ok. That sounds extremely promising to me.


If you zoom out from the immediate month-to-month costs and look at the total amounts instead, the picture looks different to me.

My mom’s care is likely to be relatively limited from here. I’m also not sure what long-term support for Juno you are assuming. If you are not planning to support them indefinitely after college, then that is also a relatively limited item. And Juno is already a trust beneficiary.

The house is finite too. Taken together, all of that still looks to me like well under $1 million, which is less than 20% of the total resources we are talking about.


I know you don’t want to dick me over. My concern is that Missouri law will do exactly that. It’s an evil red-state framework, and that’s why this question matters so much to me.


But in the end, you’d like to have 50% of the equity in the house, plus the equivalent of 50% of the $19k monthly to live off when retired, and a backup of life insurance which would pay out something like $1m if I die, correct?


It’s important that I am very clear on this when discussing with my lawyer.


And it’d be handy to understand where areas of compromise might be for you so I could tell my lawyer that as well, but maybe you’d prefer all of this to come out in mediation.


You had said 30%, so I was assuming we were still talking about the 30% pre-mediation settlement framework.

Also, if the insurance is structured as a survivorship policy on both you and Juno, the cost drops substantially — roughly 70%, as I understand it.


My concern is that even mediation is going to end up leaning heavily on Missouri law unless you tell me otherwise.


I thought you said 30% of the $19k starting now would leave you with 50% at retirement?


I’m not sure what you mean. Can you remind me what you’re referring to?


My intention is to look at everything I listed above (fairness for Juno and me, for you, the norms under mo law, etc) and try to get something to work that’s fair.


I understand. What I’m saying is that, as I understand it, Missouri law is an extremely unfair framework for my situation because it offers little or no real retirement protection. So if Missouri norms are going to carry substantial weight in the discussion, that matters a great deal from my side.


I can try. :) I believe this is what you told me you are figuring:

I receive about $19,000/month from the trust.
30% of that = about $5,700/month to Karl.

if Karl received $5,700/month for many years, he could save and invest it as retirement income. By the time he reaches 67, that stream of payments could effectively fund his retirement.

So even though it’s 30% on paper, over time it can function more like sharing the long-term benefit of the trust income, which is why it started to feel closer to a 50/50 outcome in retirement terms rather than just temporary support.


No, I don’t remember that at all. Can you cite what I said?


To be clear, I spent all of the bitcoin helping hold us over until your allowance started. If I had understood that I might need to provide my own retirement security separately, I would never have used it that way.


Ok so that’s what I thought I understood - I’m glad I checked. How about instead of me looking for it in chat right now (bc it would take a lot of scrolling) you tell me what you are thinking? It’s really important to me to be accurate.


Sure. As I see it, we effectively have two parallel negotiations going on.

One is the pre-mediation settlement framework we had been discussing, which I understood as 30% ongoing.

The other is what happens in mediation if that does not resolve it. In that setting, I would have to argue for more.

I would prefer not to get into the second one by text, because it is more adversarial and uglier than I would like.


I’d rather not go through the different ways we each contributed to the financial picture, if that’s ok. That’s not why I’m asking.


I think we are talking past each other right now. I’m not referring to what you said would happen if we didn’t agree on the 30% before mediation.


Do you not think it matters that we made these decisions together over the course of the marriage?


Maybe I’ll go scroll back and try to find what you had said about ending up with the equivalent of 50% at retirement


To be clear, if the goal were for me to end up with 50% of what I otherwise would have had, I would need something like 50% of the total trust value set aside now. It would be nearly impossible to save that amount over 10 years. And even if I could, it would then have to be understood in future dollars, which will be worth less than today’s dollars.


If you could answer this directly with a number: What is the monthly amount you want to have at 67


From me


Do you mean in terms of the pre-mediation settlement framework, or in terms of what I would argue for in mediation?


Let’s say your pre-mediation number


What I would want is 30% of what I otherwise would have had. So if we use $19,000/month as the baseline, 30% of that is $5,700/month in today’s dollars. In 2036 dollars, assuming 3% annual inflation, that is about $7,660/month.


Ok thank you for that number.


Sure. Sorry — I did not realize I was withholding that number.


So I need to understand something. And I don’t know how to ask it exactly so I’m just going to ask.


Ok.


You have said twice now that if we do not agree before mediation on this, you are going to become adversarial, ugly, and ask for more than this. Correct? So should I take that as a threat?


No, not a threat at all. The settlement number is lower than what I would ask for if it went to mediation. It is intentionally lower in the hope of making settlement possible.


ChatGPT assures me that this is normal settlement practice. Are you hearing otherwise?


It’s just interesting that we are only talking about the settlement that you have proposed. I’m going to take your proposal into consideration when I talk to my lawyer, and I will come back to you with my proposal. And I could swear that mediation is designed to help sort through exactly this kind of thing.


I thought we were talking about trying to get to a fair number, not negotiation tactics


I don’t understand. You’re perfectly welcome to make a counteroffer within the settlement discussion.

And yes, the pre-mediation number is the lowest fairness number I’m willing to accept in the interest of making settlement easier.

As I’ve said before, I think it is pretty clear that 50% is the actual marital split number.


what does “within the settlement discussion” mean


And yes, we can absolutely continue this in mediation. But as I said at the outset, Missouri law does not provide meaningful retirement protection for me, and my concern is that the mediation, as I understand it, is still going to lean heavily on Missouri law.


The mediation is whatever we make of it. We can do anything we want, and it doesn’t matter what Missouri law says.


Ok. Are you willing to say that to the mediator? My understanding is that the mediator will still lean heavily on Missouri law.


That’s what the mediator said to me.


That is amazing news. I am hearing something quite different from my lawyer.


That was really my question at the beginning of this conversation: can we argue fairness directly, without leaning on whatever horrible system Missouri has in place?


Jennifer said that she is only there to help us get to an agreement. She knows the law and she knows the norms of Missouri divorce law but if we agreed to something crazy, that’s fine. Her job is to help us be creative so that we can agree.


What did your lawyer say?


My lawyer told me that Missouri law would still largely rule the day in mediation, and that asking for meaningful retirement protection would be viewed as well outside what Missouri ordinarily provides.


In her words, without a postnup, you’re fucked.


Jennifer and I talked about it quite a bit. I think if I wanted to be an asshole, I could be difficult somehow and rely on Missouri law to support my claim, but that’s why we’re not going to court. Because if it’s up to a judge, they just go by mo law. I think this is worth an email into Jennifer.


Well, you have said things that made it sound as though you were relying on what a court would typically do. So I’m genuinely relieved to hear that you’re willing to negotiate from a genuine fairness position.


No. I’ve said twice in this conversation that I need to take a look at it from the angle of what Juno and I need, what you need, what is the norm, what is Missouri law, what the trust says, every angle. And in the end, we will find something that works. Obviously I want to be fair. The things that you’ve brought up as defining Fair to you may not be the same things that define it for me, which is why I shy away from using that term


Right, but in earlier discussions you said that “the consistent guidance has been that what you’re describing would likely be viewed as more than what a court would typically order.”

I just want to make sure we’re targeting actual fairness here, and not just what a Missouri court would say. I am very comfortable with us working out what fairness actually means for both of us.


Yes - that is what I have been told. I think I said that in the interest of sharing information.


Oh. Ok. Yes, I do understand that. My point is that, as I understand it, in Missouri retirement protection is barely even part of the conversation.


Some examples of things that you’ve brought up to define fair include: whether or not we should stick with what we had thought was planned, whether or not we should go with what Missouri laws dictate, whether or not your bitcoin expenditure created an unfair disadvantage, etc. Honestly, none of that matters to me. I’m trying to look forward and decide what is fair based on what we have, and what we need.


Ok, that makes sense. I would argue that the other issues are not irrelevant to fairness, but yes, I understand that need is a big part of the framework.


Ok but that’s what we are working to make happen. I talked to Jennifer about that and that’s fine. She said that there might be different creative ways to structure it, if we wanted - like maybe the money goes into a retirement account for you to accumulate interest, and if you die first, it comes back to me.


Etc etc


That makes sense, and I’m comfortable with that. If it turns out I can fully support myself, I’m perfectly willing for support to fall away.

My fear is simply that it won’t turn out that way. I don’t have especially high hopes about where the world is heading right now, and I’m trying to be realistic about that.


Liked “That makes sense, and I’m comfortable with that. If it turns out I can fully support myself, I’m perfectly willing for support to fall away.

My fear is simply that it won’t turn out that way. I don’t have especially high hopes about where the world is heading right now, and I’m trying to be realistic about that.
”


And on the actual numbers, I don’t see my mom’s care or support for Juno as being especially large factors in the grand scheme of things. I understand that they make the short-term picture stickier, but those are the kinds of issues that can usually be handled with structure.


Agree. The lack of savings, and the possibility that I won’t be able to buy you out of the house are areas of concern for me.


I guess if I can’t buy the house, then we sell it and make bank


If it would help make the 30% settlement workable for you, I’m comfortable letting you stay in the house without paying me for my share right away. I don’t need that money anytime soon.


If you want to keep the house, I’m very open to finding ways to make that possible.


Ok that feels relieving


Especially if the value of the house keeps going up


Good. Is there anything else I can do to make this feel more workable for you?


I don’t know off the top of my head, but I think there are going to be ways that we each can work on in that vein


Thank you for that


And I don’t know whether this framing is useful to you, but to me the savings issue looks different when there is a guaranteed trust income stream behind it. In practical terms, the trust itself functions as your long-term savings base. That’s why I don’t think you should need to feel financially precarious in the ordinary sense.


I get that. I think that because our household and discretionary used to add up to 9000, but then it got inflated to around 23,000 with household, your expenses, plus your mom at $5500 - that was what started getting me worried.


Sure. But seriously, those do not look like long-term expenses to me, so I don’t think they’re the kind of thing to worry about in the big picture.


Liked “Sure. But seriously, those do not look like long-term expenses to me, so I don’t think they’re the kind of thing to worry about in the big picture.
”


I want to sincerely thank you for talking with me today. I feel substantially better about things. And if there’s anything I can do on my side to help, just let me know.


Ditto all of those things


When you’re in town, you might want to go over to nebula and shut the printer down in a more permanent way?


Yes, definitely. That’s on my checklist for when I’m in town, and I’ll make sure it gets shut down properly.


Liked “Yes, definitely. That’s on my checklist for when I’m in town, and I’ll make sure it gets shut down properly.
”


Do you know when you’re getting in on Monday?


Karl is flying to St. Louis on Monday, March 30 — departing SAT at 7:30 AM, arriving STL at 9:35 AM (Flight #4404).
His return is Friday, April 3 — leaving STL at 12:20 PM, connecting through Dallas Love Field, and arriving back in SAT at 4:40 PM.


Thanks for the info


There will be construction people to let in at 8am all week - a gruff guy named Robert and his sons. Upstairs bathroom is almost done.


Ok


After our conversation, I feel like you now have enough information to decide whether you want to accept the settlement.

So to state it one more time as clearly as I can: I am still willing to settle now on the 30% pre-mediation framework we have been discussing, with flexibility on the house and insurance structure so that it is workable for you.

If you want to accept that settlement, please tell me directly. If you don’t, I would like to know that now as well. The uncertainty about my future is extremely painful for me.


Hi - I need to talk with my lawyer about it - I have an appt with her on the 7th.


Ok. I understand that you want to talk with your lawyer.

I do want to say plainly that waiting until April 7 is very hard on me. If there is a specific remaining reason you cannot accept the 30% settlement now, I would really appreciate it if you would tell me what it is. Otherwise, from my side, it feels like the issue is no longer lack of information but continued delay.


I understand that the uncertainty is difficult. At the same time, this is a major long-term financial decision for both of us and for Juno, and I need to discuss it with my lawyer before making any commitments.


I understand that you want to discuss it with your lawyer before committing.

But from my side, that still does not identify a substantive obstacle to the settlement itself. If there is a specific remaining concern about Juno, the house, liquidity, or the structure, I would appreciate hearing it plainly. Otherwise, what I am hearing is not that the settlement does not work, but that you are not ready to commit to it yet.


I understand what you’re asking. The reason I’m not committing yet is that I need to understand the legal and financial implications before agreeing to a long-term settlement. My lawyer also needs to speak with Matt about the trust, and I need to understand what my finances would actually look like under the proposed structure. That’s why I want to review it with her on April 7 before making a decision. Not because I’m refusing it, to be clear.


I need to be honest that the uncertainty here is extremely upsetting to me, as I have said several times now. I do not feel comfortable coming home and pretending I’m ok while this is still unresolved. If you are not going to be in a position to decide until April 7, then I’m going to postpone my visit until after that.


I understand if postponing the visit feels easier for you right now. I hope you also understand why I need to talk with my lawyer before making any agreements about something this significant.


Would Monday, April 13 through Friday, April 17 work instead?


Probably.


Ok. I need to change my tickets quickly, so if those dates are not going to work, please let me know as soon as you can.


It should be fine


From my perspective, I have now responded to each of the concerns you’ve raised about the settlement — including cash flow, the house, savings, Juno, my mom’s care, insurance, and structure.

So if you do decide against it, I would really appreciate it if you would tell me the precise reason. I’m not asking that in order to argue. I’m asking because I want to make sure I have explained my position clearly and that we are not still talking past each other about what is actually being proposed.

And please let me know as soon as possible.


I want to come back to something you said — that whether what we had thought was planned “honestly” doesn’t matter to you, and that you want to decide fairness based on what we have and what we need.

I don’t understand how that works. The assumptions we made together about retirement shaped the choices we made during the marriage — how we used resources, and what we did not build separately. Fairness can’t just be a snapshot of where things happen to stand today. It has to account for the expectations and reliance that got us here.

So from where I sit, whether we planned to use your inheritance for retirement is directly relevant. When someone relies on a shared understanding and makes decisions accordingly, that reliance is a fairness issue. If it can simply be set aside after the fact, I don’t know what fairness means anymore.


And under the framework you’ve described — fairness based on what we have and what we need right now — broken promises simply stop being unfair once enough time has passed or circumstances have changed. I can’t square that with any definition of fairness I recognize.


I know we never sat down and made explicit promises about retirement. But we did have a working understanding, and that understanding shaped every financial decision we made together.

If you genuinely didn’t expect your inheritance to support my retirement, then I need to understand why you were comfortable allowing me to spend down every other available asset — because without it, I have nothing left.


Am I being unreasonable here? I genuinely don’t think I am — but if I’m wrong, please tell me. Please.


I hear that you feel strongly about the expectations we had during the marriage and how that factors into your definition of fairness. I am looking at it a different way, and I don’t think it’s productive for us to try to litigate that whole question by text.

Again, from my side, I’m trying to make decisions based on the financial realities we each have now and what is sustainable going forward. Before I agree to any long-term settlement, I need to understand the legal and financial implications, which is why I’m planning to talk with my lawyer on April 7. If there’s some huge discrepancy between what I understand then versus what I understand now, I’ll let you know.

I’m not ignoring what you’ve said, but I’m not in a position to resolve the broader fairness debate over text.


I understand your need to get advice from your lawyer. What I’m still genuinely stuck on is the idea that prior commitments and shared understandings don’t factor into fairness at all.

Taken to its logical end, that would mean a promise only matters if the other person still happens to need it when the time comes. But that’s not how fairness works. If I promise to pay you $10, I owe it whether or not you need the $10.

That’s why I keep coming back to the expectations we lived under during the marriage. Those understandings shaped real decisions, and fairness that ignores that isn’t fairness.


And as I understand it, the needs-based approach you’re describing isn’t some neutral definition of fairness — it’s basically Missouri’s legal framework restated as a principle. I hoped we were trying to do better than that.


I don’t think it’s as simple as that. For instance, your mother has become sick, and a large chunk of the money may have been needed to go to her care. You might have become an abuser who tried to kill me and therefore you, I don’t think you would deserve anything. I might have lost all of the money in an awful gambling debt. Or I could’ve won the lottery and had $14 billion. It all creates different angles. There was a time before the trust when I thought that I was going to receive the full amount in inheritance. That would have been a different situation.


I think that when it comes down to it, you need to understand that I’m going to be as fair as I possibly can, given the reasons I said a few times now. I don’t think that we need to have a consensus on what constitutes the moral definition.


I'm not saying it should be as simple as that. I'm saying it would be wrong to ignore it.
And I know you're going to try to be fair. But when you say that prior commitments and shared understandings don't matter, I worry that your sense of what's fair may have drifted from what fair actually looks like.


Ok. I hear what you’re saying and I understand how strongly you feel about it. I’ve given this a lot of thought as well, and I’m going to stand by what I’m saying.


But as I understand what you’re saying, a promise can effectively stop mattering later if the need is no longer there.


So if you became a trillionaire, would you still ask for the support?


Hey - I need to step away for a bit


To answer your question directly: yes, I think it would still be fair to ask for the support. But in that scenario it would also feel stingy, so I personally would not. Someone else might, and I would still think the claim was fair in principle.

What I want to ask in return is whether you are genuinely concerned about that scenario. I do not believe financial success is likely to be my future.

And to be clear, if it turns out I can fully support myself, I am happy to forego your support. I am not trying to hoard money. I am genuinely afraid that I will not be able to support myself.


I didn’t say that because I’m worried that that particular situation will happen. I’m just saying that this is why I want to base fairness on current circumstances. So I’m gonna step away right now from if that’s ok.


That’s fine. We can leave it here for now and come back to it later if you want, including in mediation. I’m just trying to get as much clear as possible before mediation, and I do think today was productive.

My point still remains, though: I understand why current circumstances matter. What I do not understand is how they erase the relevance of prior commitments.

If I promise to pay you $10, can I break that promise later just because you no longer need it?


Leah is still referring customers to us - do you want to send her an email - maybe see if kent wants the printer, or our extra globes, etc


I don’t really have the emotional bandwidth for that right now. But if you want to reach out to her about it, that’s fine with me.


Will do. I’ll post what I’m going to write here first though


Would you mind continuing to talk a bit about the mediation issues?


Sure for a bit


Can you tell me why you thought today was productive?


Thank you. Then let me try to make this as narrow as possible.

I’m not asking what fairness ultimately requires, what Missouri law says, or what settlement number should be. I’m only asking the factual part: do you agree or disagree that, during the marriage, we made major financial decisions with the shared understanding that your inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us?


I’m not comfortable getting into detailed questions about past financial understandings over text. That feels like something that’s better handled in mediation or with our lawyers present. So I’m going to leave that question for that setting.


Thank you. I appreciate your being clear that you don’t want to answer that question over text.

And to answer your question: I thought today was productive because I did not entirely understand your position about past obligations and fairness before today. I still do not agree with it, but it is important for me to understand it.


Can you tell me what you understand about it?


What I think I understand is that you do not think fairness should be based on what we thought was planned during the marriage.

As I understood what you said earlier, the things I have brought up about prior plans, expectations, and reliance do not matter to you in deciding what is fair. Instead, you are trying to decide what is fair based on what we have and what we need.

So what I hear you saying is that prior commitments and shared understandings do not carry real weight in your fairness analysis. I do not agree with that view, but I think that is the position you have been describing. If I have that wrong, please correct me.

There’s one other mediation issue I’d like to understand better, if you’re willing.

Do you see returning to San Francisco as a legitimate part of my effort to rebuild my life, or do you see that as outside the range of what should count in a fairness analysis?


Just to make sure I understand the question — are you asking about fairness in principle, or about whether I think San Francisco is too expensive?


Fairness in principle first.

I’m asking the threshold question: do you see returning to San Francisco as a legitimate part of trying to rebuild my life, or do you see that as outside what fairness should account for from the outset?

The separate question of whether it is too expensive, and what level of expense is reasonable there, can come after.


So I feel like you’re gathering evidence for your legal argument here and I’d rather do this in mediation


I’ve already explained that my goal here is to identify our points of disagreement in advance so we do not waste time in mediation. I’m not trying to trap you or build a record against you.


I’m just trying to understand your position more clearly before we get there.


I’m assuming you feel like sf is necessary and so will need to ask for more support to transition you out there?


If you’re not comfortable answering threshold questions on this topic by text, then I’m not sure I should be answering them either. If you do want to answer them, I’m happy to reciprocate.


If that’s it, could you just say that?


That is the next question, not the first one.

If you do not want to answer the threshold question by text, I understand. But then I do not think it makes sense for me to answer the follow-on question by text either.


Sorry to be blunt.


It’s just if you might’ve said something like, “hey I really want to start over in San Francisco and I might need some transition money to help me get there. Could we talk about that?” then I would understand what you wanted. When you approach me with questions of moral fairness first, it makes me suspicious and very much like you are building a case.


Ok. Let me ask it more plainly.

Do you think returning to San Francisco is a reasonable thing for me to be trying to do at this stage, or do you see that as something outside the scope of what you would be willing to help me with?


I think it’s a reasonable thing to do. Where you want to rebuild your life is ultimately your decision. What I’m not in a position to do right now is say what level of financial support I could realistically provide for any plan, including that one. That’s something I need to understand better with my lawyer and then work through in mediation. But good to know before I meet with my lawyer. Is there anything else like that I should understand?


Can I ask a question?


Can you say a little more about what you mean by “anything else like that I should understand”? I want to make sure I understand what kind of question you’re asking before I answer.


Like any other items I might need to broach with the lawyer next week - I thought you said you felt I had a good understanding of all you proposed, but this is an addition to that.


My question is totally off the topic


I’m happy to answer specific questions. I just don’t feel able to answer “is there anything else I need to ask my lawyer?” in the abstract, because that still feels too vague to me.


So this is an off-the-wall question


You were always pretty mad at my mom for not writing you into the trust. It’s my understanding that including people’s spouses is not the norm. I wouldn’t have assumed that I had a right to your inheritance from your family, if the situations were reversed. In terms of fairness, this is a question I’ve had for a while. It’s not going to change how fair I try to be going forward, but it’s something I have unresolved feelings about.


I think those are two different questions.

One is whether I believed I had some independent right to be written into your mother’s trust. I did not think that in any simple sense, and I agree that spouses are often not included directly.

The other question is what became fair between us once the trust existed and our marriage was structured around it. That is where my feelings were. My position was never “your mother owed me an inheritance.” It was that once your inheritance became the long-term backstop we were both living around, and I made real decisions in reliance on that, it became relevant to fairness between us.

And that is why I was so upset when I realized I might not be able to rely on it. I had been assuming your inheritance would provide my retirement security too. I thought that was our plan.

So if the roles were reversed, I would not assume I had a right to your family’s money as such. But if we had built our lives around it and you had relied on it in place of building separate security, then I would think that mattered.


I really regret not pressing the issue more directly in therapy when it first came up. I believe we might have avoided a great deal of this if I had.


I had these questions before we separated, so they aren’t questions that’re linked to your situation now.
You were really resentful for a long time that you weren’t named in my mother’s trust. Why, if you knew it wasn’t the norm


I was not resentful. I was alarmed that exactly what is happening now might happen.


You seemed to me to be very mad at my mom about it. And it always made me think that I was never upset that your dad didn’t include me in his will.


I was going to bring this up with Julia that last session but didn’t have a chance.


Yes — exactly. My dad’s inheritance came to me in a way that could become marital property, and that is what we did with it.

Your mom’s trust was structured to prevent that. That is why I was so alarmed by it. It set us up for exactly this outcome: we lived around it as a shared backstop, but legally it remained out of reach to me if the marriage ended.


Ok. Maybe it was your general antipathy from my mom that made me think that what you’re calling alarm was anger at her, but I would love to hear the tapes on that because I feel like my memory of several conversations about the issue is pretty clear.
And again, I’m not asking with regard to the current situation. I’m saying that I would not have thought that I had any right to the money your dad left you. I’m also not asking to lay blame on you.


See, I don’t understand why receiving an inheritance should be treated so differently from winning the lottery. I certainly did not understand that I could be left out in the cold if we divorced, and I definitely would not have agreed to spend down our other retirement-positioned assets if I had known that.

It has left me incredibly financially vulnerable. Any anger I have toward your mother is because of that reason alone.


By the same token, if I would’ve died, what would you have done?


To be clear, I was afraid that exactly what is happening now might happen. At the time, I felt that you and Julia were effectively telling me I was being paranoid. And yet here we are.


About your death: that is why I asked Matt about the insurance. But once I realized that the chance of both you and Juno dying at the same time was slim, I was willing to accept that risk.


But you wouldn’t have a retirement


I’ve got to go for now -


I don’t understand your point. The insurance was to provide me retirement and financial security if needed. If only you had died, I was comfortable that Juno would take care of me.


The structure of the trust created a financial imbalance that would not otherwise exist in a marriage. If you win the lottery during the marriage, those winnings are shared. This was different.

Because of that structure, you ended up with substantially more financial power than I had. That is what alarmed me at the time, and exactly what I was afraid of has now happened.


That we separated and I’m doing what I can to make sure you’re taken care of. Anyway.


Right. It is not a good position for me to be in that I have to rely on you to do the right thing, or try to persuade you when I think you are not being fair. I am incredibly vulnerable.

I hope you do the right thing. But you still will not answer the $10 question, and that makes me extremely worried.


And at the risk of making you angry, I do not think this structure arose by chance. Your mother’s marriage also seems to have been marked by a significant financial imbalance, and I do not think that is a healthy model.


And it kills me that I feel I need to worry about angering you. It feels too close to the kind of game my father used to use to control his family, and it is very upsetting to me. It is also why, in the end, I told him to stuff his money.


It’s ok. I’m getting good at not being afraid to recognize and say what I think to you


That’s not what I’m afraid of.


You’ve already said some messed up things and I’m still focused on being fair to you.


Sorry — that came out wrong. Yes, that actually is what I’m afraid of.

Not that you’ll say what you think. I’m afraid of being in a structure where, after conflict, I am still dependent on your goodwill and your judgment about what is fair. Even if you intend to be fair, that is an incredibly vulnerable position for me to be in.


When you say I’ve said some messed up things, can you tell me which things you mean? I’d rather understand that specifically than guess.


No - I’m not getting into that tonight.


Ok. We can leave it there for tonight.


Liked “Ok. We can leave it there for tonight.
”


I’m getting password-change alerts on my Apple devices. Do you know what that’s about?


No


I see one for you ￼