Chapter 17 - Rachel’s divorce
Trent fought the divorce from prison.
Not the dissolution itself eventually.
Money.
Condo.
Debt.
Retirement.
His Hale Medical Interiors guarantee.
Rachel’s separate savings.
No children, thankfully.
That simplified custody.
They had none.
My daughter had wanted children once.
Trent always said:
“After the company stabilizes.”
Another thing delayed by business.
Rachel was thirty-six.
She did not know whether she still wanted motherhood.
Not my decision.
Their condo was sold.
Mold remediation had been completed months earlier.
The original reason for the six suitcases ended up being real and irrelevant.
Net equity after mortgages and costs:
$84,000.
Split after offsets.
Trent’s guarantee deficiency remained his separate/business responsibility to significant extent, though marital accounting gave him some credits for shared benefit from company income.
Rachel kept her retirement.
Trent kept what remained of his.
No rich divorce victory.
Then the private lender sued Trent over alleged misrepresentations in his application.
Not me.
Not Rachel initially.
They claimed he overstated available related-party liquidity.
But the loan had never funded.
Damages limited.
The case settled for fees and release without a huge judgment.
Again.
No lender discovered a secret pathway to my assets.
Then bankruptcy trustee examined whether Trent’s representation about family liquidity constituted fraud against creditors.
Because no money was advanced in reliance, the issue mainly affected his credibility and discharge of certain debts.
His guarantee settlement required continued payments after release.
Financial consequence.
Then Rachel completed her diversion/probation terms.
Community service.
Counseling.
No violations.
Her case closed according to the agreed disposition.
She did not celebrate.
She sent me a copy of the closure order through Claire.
No note.
Good.
Our contact had grown to:
Weekly phone calls.
Monthly lunch in public.
No visits inside my home.
That last boundary was mine.
One lunch, Rachel asked:
“Do you still think I wanted your money?”
I thought.
“You wanted access to decision-making.”
“Yes.”
“And you were willing to imagine your control could solve Trent’s problem.”
She looked down.
“Yes.”
“Do I think you woke up wanting to steal from me? No.”
She cried.
“Does that help?”
“No.”
“Good.”
She looked startled.
“Why good?”
“Because I’m not trying to make you feel better. I’m trying to tell you what I believe.”
That was our relationship now.
Less comforting.
More honest.
Then the appellate court issued a decision.
Assault conviction:
Untouched.
Camera-damage conviction:
Untouched.
Evidence-tampering conviction:
Vacated and remanded for possible retrial because the jury instruction failed to require a sufficiently specific connection between destruction and anticipated official proceeding under that statute.
Trent had won one legal point.
His sentence would need adjustment unless prosecutors retried.
Nora called furious.
Rachel called worried.
I read the opinion.
It made sense.
That irritated everyone.
Prosecutors now had to decide whether to retry a man already convicted of assault and property damage for the camera destruction.
They chose not to retry.
Instead, resentencing occurred on remaining convictions.
Trent’s total custodial term decreased.
Not dramatically.
Still real.
The word “tampering” disappeared from the judgment.
The sentence “No more evidence” remained on video forever.
May you like
Law corrected itself.
Facts stayed.
