The Divorce Papers: A Novel (20 page)

BRUCE MEIKLEJOHN

50 SAINT CLOUD

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

April 20, 1999

David Greaves
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555

Dear David:

Before she left on holiday in Hawaii, my daughter Maria told me she had made arrangements with your firm to use both you and a young associate in your firm, Ann Deal (or is it the Scotch version, Dalziel; I knew a James Dalziel at Mather, her father?), as her attorneys in her divorce. I was very pleased to hear of this arrangement. If you need a third or fourth attorney, do not hesitate to use one. I shall pay. I want her to have the best representation possible. To be frank, I want you to bury Durkheim.

I have never liked him. I tried my best but I couldn’t. I invited him to my home and to the Vineyard place; I even spent a weekend with him (the longest of my life) playing golf at Augusta. After I put him up for the Cricket Club, he wanted me to put him up for the Plimouth Club. I tried to explain that the PC wasn’t PC: no Jews except, of course, Jim Rosental, Mather’s president. Can you believe he hired Ray Kahn to represent him?

I always thought Durkheim married Maria for her money and her connections. His first wife, Helen Fincher, was rich and well connected too. Can’t be a coincidence. I tried to warn Maria, but she was smitten. And now he walks out. He’s gotten what he wanted from her. I can’t help but feel that family honor is involved.

Maria won’t talk to me about it, and you probably won’t tell me anything either, all that attorney-client privilege blather. But I trust you and I know you’ll do right by my family. I don’t care what it costs, get the bastard. And if you need me to rattle chains at the hospital and the med school, let me know. It would be my pleasure.

Sincerely yours,

April 10, 1999

Dear David:

Last night I went with Sophie to the Mather Rep to see the Stoppard play,
The Real Thing
, starring her great friend, Maggie Pfeiffer. Do you know the play? It’s about marriage and adultery and divorce and remarriage and adultery. There was a speech in it that struck a chord, coming as it did so soon after our lunch at Porter’s. It’s a husband’s explanation to his wife of the possibility of someone else.

Today, I bought a copy of the play at the Coop; I thought I should send it to you out of a sort of politeness.

Elisabeth

Terrible Discovery

Dear Maggie—

Where are you? I tried to call you but got no answer. I’m a wreck. I’ve just had an awful experience. I was in DG’s office, looking through the Durkheim docket, the firm’s collection of documents and correspondence relating to this damned divorce I’ve been hog-tied into doing, and came across a letter which didn’t belong in the file and which I never, never should have seen. It was from my mother to DG. After we all had lunch and after she saw your play, she sent him a copy of
The Real Thing
. The letter quoted that bit from the play where your husband tells you about the “glint of someone else’s possibility.” I got light-headed reading it. Could Hannah have seen it and filed it? Did he misfile it himself? I didn’t know what to do, so I took it. What do I do with it? What do I do about it? She signed off her letter, “out of a sort of politeness.” How could she? And how could he be so indiscreet, leaving it there for anyone (Fiona even) to read? I can’t believe they are behaving so badly. They should both be pilloried.

I should have cottoned earlier to all this. Earlier in the day, David had written me a memo uncharacteristically relaxed, almost playful (in spite of all post-Fiona fallout). He’s always so matter-of-fact, precise, organized, in his writing. This one was rambling and filled with dangling pronouns. He said he was having fun with the case. He even talked about anti-Semitism in a way I’d never heard him talk before. He never liked it, of course, but he saw it as bad breeding. This time, he was indignant. I thought it was my good influence. I should have known better. It was my mother’s bad influence.

Woe is me, Mags.

Sophie

Dear Sophie—

Don’t assume the worst. I don’t think anything has happened between them—other than the lunch and the letter. Your mother didn’t proposition him, she only acknowledged an attraction. If she wanted more, she would have done more. (Believe me, she knows how.) And we don’t even know if he responded—though only a dope would have failed to respond in some way.

I’m guessing David wanted, still wants, to keep the letter, though I’m sure he never intended to put it in the docket. Maybe in his subconscious (WASPs have them too, you know), he wanted you to know. It must have made him happy, getting it, and we always want to share our happiness. Who but you is there to share it with? (You know I’m right, crazy as it sounds. I even bet, in the lunatic part of his brain that’s spinning impossible fantasies of weekend trysts in NY at the Carlyle, he hopes you’re happy for him. It’s
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
. And isn’t it lovely to know that we still feel that way in our 50s?) It’s unlikely someone else would have gone through the docket. But I don’t think there’s much point delving into that. The real question is what to do with the letter now. DO NOT DESTROY IT. Give it back. Slip it into one of his desk drawers. Now.

Don’t say anything to your mother or David. You wouldn’t mind if it were my mother who was fooling around on her husband. (We’d all be cheering her on.) And while you’ve got this proprietary sense about David, you wouldn’t be upset—only annoyed—if you found out he was flirting with her. The fact that it’s your mother who’s doing this is what’s upsetting you.

You idolize her. You’ve always idolized her. You can still idolize her. (Or, you can finally stop now that you’re almost 30.) Remember the whole point of that speech is that NOTHING real happens.

I don’t mean to trivialize how you’re feeling—I’m sure it was a blow, reading it—but it’s not, as your mother would say, the end of the world. You’ve got your own real thing now. Let your mother and David have this small, safe, titillating fling or whatever it is. I don’t think it’s anything significant. Truly. My guess is that they don’t want to “push it,” as Stoppard says, but they don’t want to give it up entirely either, whatever it is. It’s too exciting. Who knows how we’ll be misbehaving at 50? If that’s the worst thing I do, I’ll forgive myself—and hope my daughter, if she finds out, forgives me too.

Love,
Maggie

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

April 23, 1999

Bruce Meiklejohn
50 Saint Cloud
New Salem, Narragansett 06555

Dear Bruce,

Don’t worry. We shall do right by your daughter and granddaughter. The young lawyer’s name is Anne Sophie Diehl, known as Sophie to her many friends, myself among them. You may know her dad, by reputation at least. He’s John Diehl, University Professor at Columbia and one of the last great Marxist historians. She’s smart as a whip and on top of the case. Most important, your daughter has great confidence in her.

The best thing you can do at the moment is not rattle chains at the hospital or blackball Daniel Durkheim’s membership in the Plimouth Club but support your daughter and granddaughter. We’re in a strong negotiating position. If we need to call out the cavalry, I’ll let you know.

Yours truly,

David Greaves

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

MEMORANDUM

Attorney Work Product

I spoke briefly on the phone this morning with Maria Meiklejohn, who is back from Hawaii. (Her husband did not change the locks while she was away—or close any more accounts.) I gave her a rundown on the settlement offer, and I’ll forward a copy of it to her with a letter later today.

While she was away, Ms. Meiklejohn thought about her future, specifically her work and career; she came to the conclusion that she ought to go to law school rather than complete the Ph.D. Her thinking went like this: after the divorce, she’ll have to make money (she won’t get alimony forever, and she doesn’t want to live off her father), and the J.D. is the more useful, more remunerative degree. As she put it, “Who’s going to hire a 46-year-old newly minted American studies Ph.D.?” She also thought she’d like practicing law and would be good at it. “I find my divorce mentally stimulating—when it’s not emotionally shattering.” She’d like to go to Mather Law School (and her chances of getting in are very good), but she’d be willing to go to the University of Narragansett. If she gets into Mather, she should go there. Mather is probably the second-best law school in the country (ha!), and the better the school, the greater the job opportunities, particularly for someone her age.

The projected annual tuition for Mather Law (averaged over three years for the academic years 2001–02 through 2003–04) is $30,000; for Narragansett, it’s $14,000. Ms. Meiklejohn thinks Dr. Durkheim should pay
the tuition. We could frame the offer to provide both traditional alimony or spousal support for living expenses and rehabilitation alimony or support for tuition at law school. Traditional support would cease with employment at $48,000 a year; rehabilitative support would cease after three (3) years.

I suggested to Ms. Meiklejohn that she might also think about business school and an M.B.A. in public or private management. (The last client of mine who wanted my non-legal advice wanted to know if I could set him up with a drug connection while he was in prison.)

I am finishing up the memo on the value of Dr. Durkheim’s medical degree and the possibility of “reimbursement alimony.” I’ll get it to you before the end of the day. I’ve prepared two versions, excessive and redacted. I’ll send you the redacted and put the longer version in the files.

TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI

222 CHURCH STREET

NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555

(393) 876-5678

MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND FACT

Attorney Work Product

Memorandum of Law

The issue here is whether a Narragansett court might consider the value of a medical degree in fashioning a divorce settlement under the Equitable Distribution Statute (EDS), Section 830, Title 33, Narragansett Code.

Prior to the divorce revolution of the 1980s, a medical degree was not treated anywhere as an asset or other property interest to be divided or distributed in a divorce, not having any of the usual attributes of property; i.e., it could not be bought, sold, transferred, conveyed, pledged, attached, assigned, or inherited. Further, it had no exchange value on an open market. A court might award the family home to one of the spouses; alternatively, it could order it sold and distribute the proceeds between the parties according to their financial needs and earning abilities. With a medical degree, a court had no such options. Only the degree’s recipient could practice medicine. See
In re Marriage of Graham
, 194 Colo. 429, 574 P.2d 75 (1978).

Despite this refusal to consider a medical degree as property, traditional courts nonetheless recognized the value of a medical or other professional degree and took it into account in reaching an equitable divorce settlement, most often as a factor in calculating current and future child support and alimony. They also found that a spouse may be entitled to compensation for her contributions to the acquisition of the other’s degree.
In re Marriage of Horstmann
, 263 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1978);
Hubbard v. Hubbard
, 603 P.2d 747 (Okl. 1979).

In 1982 the New Jersey Supreme Court explicitly introduced the concept of “reimbursement” alimony, to be awarded in those instances when the contributions by one spouse to the education and training of the other were “made with the mutual and shared expectation that both parties to the marriage [would] derive increased income and material benefits” from the educated spouse’s professional practice.
Mahoney v. Mahoney
, 91 N.J. 488 (1982). Two years later, a lower New Jersey court expanded the concept of “reimbursement alimony” to distinguish it from ordinary alimony, which usually carries an automatic cutoff event, typically death, remarriage, or a designated term of years. In
Reiss v. Reiss
, a wife who had put her husband through medical school was awarded reimbursement alimony in a sum of $46,706.70, to be paid in monthly installments of $1,500. When, after receiving the first two monthly payments, the wife remarried, the husband sued to terminate the reimbursement alimony. The court denied his claim, pointing out that, unlike true alimony, which is based on the future needs of the recipient and the anticipated ability of the payer to pay, “reimbursement” alimony recognized a past obligation and called for payment in full. 478 A.2d 441 (Ch. 1984).

For the last 14 years, New York has treated a medical degree as a form of garden-variety marital property, no different from a house or Persian rug or ’89 Honda. In 1985 the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the wife was entitled to a 40 percent interest in her husband’s medical license. She had contributed more than 75 percent of the couple’s total income while the husband completed his education and training, and his medical license was the only tangible asset of their nine-year marriage.
O’Brien v. O’Brien
, 66 N.Y.2d 576 (1985).

Current Narragansett divorce law plainly allows for these new forms of alimony, if not specifically for “reimbursement” alimony with its debt-like features. The Narragansett Supreme Court has consistently given a liberal interpretation to the EDS principle of “equitable distribution.” Most recently, in the
Matter of Lemon
, the court awarded a lump sum of “compensatory” alimony to a wife “who had relinquished employment opportunities to accommodate the marital relationship, and was in consequence less able than her husband to support herself.” 293 Nar. 966 (1998). Reimbursing a wife for her financial contributions to his education seems a natural next step. As the court wrote in
Lemon
:

Memorandum of Fact

Dr. Daniel Durkheim, the husband of our client Ms. Maria Meiklejohn, had finished his medical education (both the M.D. and the Ph.D.) before he met Ms. Meiklejohn. Because he took the joint M.D./Ph.D. degree, his education was completely paid for. In 1980, when he and Ms. Meiklejohn began living together, Dr. Durkheim was finishing his training, working as a postdoctoral fellow earning $18,000. All of his salary (after taxes) and then some (from Ms. Meiklejohn) went to pay his child support obligation of $15,000 for his son, Tom, from his first marriage. In 1980, Ms. Meiklejohn earned $19,000 and received from her father a gift of $10,000. After their marriage, he gave each of them $10,000 a year.

Dr. Durkheim’s post-degree training (postdoc, internship, and residency) lasted eight years, and until he was appointed an assistant professor in 1987 with a salary of $80,000, he never earned more than $30,000 a year; most if not all went, after taxes, to child support. As an example, in 1987, when he was earning $30,000, Ms. Meiklejohn earned $42,000; in addition, she may be credited with the $20,000 annual gift to the couple from her father. It’s plain that, saddled with child support obligations, Dr. Durkheim could not have pursued the kind of elite, ill-paying postdoctoral training he did without his wife’s financial contributions, but would have had to either go deeply into debt or pursue a different kind of medical practice, one more immediately remunerative but unlikely to lead to the outstanding academic career he has had.

Given (i) the financial support Ms. Meiklejohn provided to her husband during the crucial later years of his training; (ii) her “relinquish[ment] of employment opportunities [in NY] to accommodate the marital relationship,” by moving to New Salem,
Matter of Lemon
; and (iii) the Narragansett Court’s expansive reading of the EDS, it is worth including “reimbursement” alimony in our counteroffer, both as a legitimate demand and a negotiating tactic.