I don’t think humans, as a species, are very highly evolved. (And we’re not evolving anymore, apparently. I read it in the Times. Because everyone now reaches reproductive age, we’re no longer weeding out the weak stock.) Look at all these people: they’re all smart, well educated, meaningfully employed, living in the richest country in the world, surrounded by people who care for them. Still, they’re unhappy and misbehaving. What more do they need? What more do I need?
I’m obsessing and free-associating, aren’t I? Off to bed then.
Love,
Sophie
Lawyers’ Names
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Harry Mortensen <hlm11@mather.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 20:49:58
Subject: Lawyers’ Names 5/12/99 8:49 PM
Dear Harry—
I asked my boss for some lawyers’ names. It turns out he’s written an article on finding a divorce lawyer for the local paper. I’ve put a copy of the article in the mail. It gives very good advice on choosing a private lawyer as well as some cheaper ideas for representation (Legal Aid, do-it-yourself kits). He also gave me the names of three local lawyers. I called and left their names on your answering machine. He says they’re all good lawyers. They’re younger—and correspondingly cheaper—than older lawyers, but they’re experienced in matrimonial law. The first is a solo practitioner, the second a member of a small firm, and the last a senior associate at a large one.
I hope this is helpful. If you need anything else, let me know.
Take care of yourself.
Yours,
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 12, 1999
Maria Mather Meiklejohn
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Mia:
Please don’t worry about saddling me with your troubles. We lawyers traffic in human misery; we make our money off of it. I only wish I could be more helpful to you during these difficult times.
You are right to stay put now, and both David and I would advise you strongly against moving out before you’ve reached and signed a settlement. While you have the money from the savings account available to you for your current expenses and the treasury bills in reserve, if you moved out without a settlement, you would not be able to make any concrete plans for your future (where you’ll live, if you can afford Mather Law School, whether you can buy Prada). You would also have effectively ceded the house to him, before the negotiations had begun. And then there is the matter of the furnishings, including the rug and the Jenny Holzer. Hold your ground. Stay put.
I say this knowing that his offer of putting you and Jane up in the Albany is especially tempting because he would be in effect relinquishing his claim to physical custody. But in fact, he is giving up nothing. You will not lose Jane; you are and have always been her primary caretaker, and there’s no way he can show that you are unfit. Reread Paynter if you’re feeling scared.
I am drafting our counteroffer. As soon as I have finished, I’ll be in touch to run it by you.
Yours,
Anne Sophie Diehl
* * *
Re: Adults May Be Misbehaving
From: Maggie Pfeiffer
To: Sophie Diehl <asdiehl@traynor.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:14:03
Subject: Re: Adults May Be Misbehaving 5/12/99 4:14 PM
Sophie, Sophie, Sophie,
What am I to do with you? Forget about your mother and DG. Misbehaving is one of the prerogatives of adulthood. If it’s anyone’s problem, it’s Jake’s, not yours. And nothing is going on.
All this fuss you’re making, it’s about you and Harry, not your mother and DG. Coming from those soigne European parents, how did you get to be such a thoroughgoing buttoned-down American? You look like them, so I know you’re theirs. What is it Jake always says? Being grown-up means tolerating ambiguity.
When we were little, I wanted your parents to adopt me. They were so sophisticated, so charming, so romantic, so intellectual, so glamorous, and so, so generous. They took me in, they talked to me, they listened to me and encouraged me. They took me along to Wellfleet every summer; they paid for my college applications and textbooks; they threw birthday parties for me. Your dad was the one who made me apply to Harvard. Your mother came to every play I was ever in and told me I could be an actress. I would have walked on coals for them. (They walked on water to me.) And you won’t cut them any slack. You’ve got to let go, Sophie; you’ve got to let them be. They shouldn’t matter that much, not anymore.
If in fact your mom’s having a fling with DG, you don’t have to worry. She’s not going to leave Jake. And she’ll make sure that she and DG part on good terms. She knows how to do that. And Jake will never find out unless she wants him to.
Stop thinking about what your parents are up to, and start thinking about Harry. Do you really want to walk away?
Love,
I’m Hopeless
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer <mcp15@mather.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 1:32:47
Subject: I’m Hopeless 5/13/99 1:32 AM
Dear Maggie,
The truth is, I haven’t in some ways gotten over my parents’ divorce. It’s been, what, 13 years? At the end, they were so awful, we couldn’t wait until they split, but until then they were, as you say, wonderful. I had the best childhood ever. I even liked junior high school. I know they’re happier now. I know they’ll never get back together. But the divorce broke my heart. If they had been normal-sized, maybe I could have gotten over it. (If they were normal-sized, maybe they would have stayed married.) Maman called the divorce Waterloo: “The English vanquished the French,” she said, shrugging. “They always do. We’ve got no principles, no convictions. We’d rather eat than fight.” (Papa used to quote Churchill on the French to us: “They were rotten on the inside before they crumbled from without.”) You’re right. I’m not French, and I’m not English. I’m a petite bourgeoise, of a distinctly American stripe. To top it off, I’ve got an unforgiving heart. Maman once said I was more lovable than loving—after I broke up with Jack. She didn’t say it unkindly, only matter-of-factly, the way she might have said I have yellow eyes, not brown. I was mortified. But I didn’t change; I couldn’t. I never spoke to Jack again. And that’s how I feel now, with Harry. I remember history and I repeat it. Stuff it, Santayana.
Maybe I should have a fling. Why wait for Harry to come round, or not come round? Jake always says self-knowledge only takes you so far. What is it Catholics call it? A firm purpose of amendment. I’ll work on it.
Love,
Sophie
P.S. But I do feel badly, very badly, about Harry.
Hello
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Harry Mortensen <hlm11@mather.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:33:13
Subject: Hello 5/19/99 11:33 PM
Dear Harry,
I’ve not been a good friend. I’m sorry. If there’s some way I can help, something I can do, please call me.
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Work Product
From: Sophie Diehl
To: David Greaves
RE: DED v. MMM: Counteroffer; Billable Hours
Date: May 20, 1999
Attachments: Letter to RK with Counteroffer
DED v. MMM: Summary Statement on Counteroffer
ASD Time Sheet
Here is the counteroffer to Dr. Durkheim’s offer. I gave it one more go-round.
I’ve interpreted “equitable distribution” to m
ean “equal distribution.” I’ve split everything down the middle, including his annual income. The saving clause is that two people will live on one half and only one on the other. How can Dr. Durkheim complain? In working this distribution, I’ve upped the ordinary alimony to $60,000 a year. We can go down to $48,000, as I outlined in the bottom-line offer, during negotiations, and perhaps give him a larger share of the assets. We can also give up the reimbursement alimony, or a part of it, but not the rehabilitation alimony for law school.
I didn’t say, though I’m tempted, that the valuation on the Martha’s Vineyard property was pure fantasy. Kahn’s too cheap to have an appraisal done; as Ms. Meiklejohn said aptly, if rudely, he pulled the figure out of his butt.
Ms. Meiklejohn will be coming in on Monday afternoon to review the letter and offer. I expect them to go out to Kahn on the 25th.
I’ve included here my Time Sheet on the Meiklejohn case. Let me know if it’s okay, and I’ll prepare her bill. I’ve racked up 31 hours and change. Is it too large? I included the time I spent researching and writing the memo on Valuing a Medical Degree. Should we eat those ten hours? As we know, a real divorce lawyer (Fiona!) would have known about that. Our fact situation is very different, so the argument is somewhat different, but it makes me a bit uneasy (and of course, I still feel stupid). Will you be billing for your time too? Do you want me to prepare a combined bill? And will you be charging only $150 an hour, as the agreement provides? Isn’t your regular fee at least twice that? If you get your hours to me by noon on Monday, I can include them in the bill for Ms. Meiklejohn. I’m nervous about this. (Can you tell?) I’ve never before handed a bill to a client. My stepfather, Jake, does it all the time. One of his patients would regularly pay him in cash, counting out the twenties, licking his thumb as he did it. Like paying a whore, Jake said. (This is a betrayal of the physician-patient privilege, once removed. Don’t tell anyone I told you.)
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 25, 1999
Ray Kahn, Esq.
Kahn & Boyle
46 Broadway
New Salem, NA 06555
Dear Mr. Kahn:
I am responding on behalf of Ms. Maria Meiklejohn to your settlement offer of April 19. I will be direct. Dr. Durkheim’s proposal is unacceptable in every respect. I will start with custody. While Ms. Meiklejohn expects to share legal custody of their daughter, Jane, with Dr. Durkheim, she will be asking for and has every reason to believe she will be awarded physical custody. I refer you to the Narragansett’s Supreme Court opinion in Paynter v. Paynter, 278 Nar. 487 (1991), and the Primary Caretaker Rule. Second, Dr. Durkheim’s offers of spousal and child support are patently inadequate and inequitable. He has offered to pay $24,000 in child support, $36,000 in alimony, and $14,000 in tuition fees, for a total payout of $78,000. The following chart shows the grossly unequal net financial consequences of this offer for the two parties.
Income Dr. Durkheim Ms. Meiklejohn
Husband’s Salary $370,000
Taxes, Soc Sec (80,000)
Child Support (24,000) 24,000
Spousal Support (36,000) 36,000
Taxes (12,000)
School Fees (14,000)
Net Income $216,000 $48,000
Under his offer, Dr. Durkheim winds up with 450% more money than his wife and daughter. Our counteroffer works an equitable distribution. It includes: child support, ordinary alimony, reimbursement alimony, and rehabilitation alimony. Ms. Meiklejohn will be asking for reimbursement alimony of $100,000, representing the support she provided Dr. Durkheim for the years 1982 to 1987 while he was pursuing his postgraduate training. His salary went entirely for child support to his son from his first marriage. The expectation is that the reimbursement alimony will be paid out over 10 years, at $10,000 a year. The request for reimbursement alimony is made in lieu of a request for a share of the value of Dr. Durkheim’s medical degree. Ms. Meiklejohn is asking for rehabilitation alimony so that she might attend law school, at Mather if possible. The expectation is that remarriage or death will terminate ordinary alimony but not rehabilitation or reimbursement alimony.
Laura Bucholtz of RealProperties Inc. has appraised the family residence at 404 St. Cloud at a current market value of $525,000. Upon sale, broker’s fees and closing costs will come to approximately $35,000, leaving $240,000 in net equity. Ms. Meiklejohn is asking for one-half.
Ms. Meiklejohn will ask for one half of the couple’s investments and retirement funds. She will relinquish the $16,000 remaining in the joint savings account to Dr. Durkheim in recognition of his inheritance from his parents. All of these funds and investments were accumulated during the couple’s 17-year marriage.
Ms. Meiklejohn’s proposal is premised on the principle of equitable distribution as formulated last year by the Supreme Court of Narragansett in Lemon v. Lemon, 293 Nar. 966, 973 (1998), and shaped by the tax consequences of child support and alimony. The proposal recognizes Ms. Meiklejohn’s contributions to Dr. Durkheim’s outstanding medical career, the annual gifts from Ms. Meiklejohn’s father over the last 16 years, and Ms. Meiklejohn’s loss of employment opportunities occasioned by the relocation to New Salem.
All of the terms of this proposal are subject to the discovery request filed on April 27 and assume that Ms. Meiklejohn is in possession of a complete and accurate statement of Dr. Durkheim’s assets and income.
No mention is made in this proposal of Ms. Meiklejohn’s interest in the Mather Estate in Aquinnah, formerly Gay Head, on Martha’s Vineyard. Dr. Durkheim has no right to or claim on the Estate.
The following chart indicates the effect of the proposed agreement during its first year.
Income Dr. Durkheim Ms. Meiklejohn
Salary $370,000
Taxes, Soc Sec (60,000)
Child Support (72,000) 72,000
Ordinary Alimony (60,000) 60,000
Rehabilitative Alimony (30,000) 30,000
Reimbursement Alimony (10,000) 10,000
Tax on Alimony (35,000)
Net Income $138,000 $137,000
After three (3) years, Dr. Durkheim would no longer have to pay rehabilitation alimony and his ordinary alimony would likely be substantially reduced if not eliminated. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours,
Anne Sophie Diehl
Maria Mather Meiklejohn and Daniel E. Durkheim
Proposed Settlement: Summary Statement
Custody
Physical Custody: sole to Maria Meiklejohn
Legal Custody: joint to Maria Meiklejohn and Daniel Durkheim
Child Support
Daniel Durkheim to pay $72,000/year for seven (7) years (through high school); Maria Meiklejohn to pay school fees
Daniel Durkheim to pay $24,000/year until Jane’s graduation from college or 23rd birthday (whichever is earlier)
Escalator clause tied to Daniel Durkheim’s salary
College Costs
Daniel Durkheim to pay all college costs (tuition, room, board, books, miscellaneous expenses)
Ordinary Alimony or Spousal Support
Daniel Durkheim to pay $60,000/year to Maria Meiklejohn for seven (7) years from signing or terminating event
Qualification: Daniel Durkheim to pay up to $60,000/year, reduced dollar for dollar by Maria Meiklejohn’s salary
Terminating event: remarriage
Escalator clause tied to Daniel Durkheim’s salary
Rehabilitation Alimony
Daniel Durkheim to pay $30,000/year to Maria Meiklejohn for three (3) years for law school tuition Terminating event: nonattendance at law school
Reimbursement Alimony
Daniel Durkheim to pay $100,000 over 10 years at $10,000/year
No terminating event
Medical Insurance
Maria Meiklejohn to pay $3,200 for COBRA account on Daniel
Durkheim’s policy
Family Residence: Current Value: $525,000; Net Equity: $240,000 Daniel Durkheim to receive $120,000; Maria Meiklejohn to receive $120,000
Maria Meiklejohn to receive her share from stock market investments if house kept by Daniel Durkheim
Daniel Durkheim’s TIAA-CREF Retirement Accounts: $600,000 Daniel Durkheim to receive $300,000; Maria Meiklejohn to receive $300,000
Daniel Durkheim’s 401(k) Plan: $300,000
Daniel Durkheim to receive $150,000; Maria Meiklejohn to receive $150,000
Stock Market Investments: $700,000
Daniel Durkheim to receive $350,000; Maria Meiklejohn to receive $350,000
Treasury Bills: $90,000
Maria Meiklejohn to receive $45,000; Daniel Durkheim to receive $45,000
Joint Savings Account: $16,000
Daniel Durkheim to receive $16,000
Given in recognition of Daniel Durkheim’s $16,000 inheritance
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
TIME SHEET
Attorney Work Product
Client: Maria Mather Meiklejohn
Attorney: Anne Sophie Diehl
Date: May 21, 1999
Rate: $150/hour
Date Item Hour(s)
3/17/99 Interview with MMM 1
Write-Up of Interview 1½
3/29/99 Meeting ASD & DG ½
Write-Up of Memo on Meeting 1
Drafting Recusal Letter to MMM n.c. (½)
4/5/99 Drafting Memo to DG on Next Steps 1
Drafting Acceptance of Summons, Etc. ¼