Chapter 79: Property on One Schedule
The property schedule could list the house and the cash; it could not edit a publishing licence.
On Monday afternoon, my family solicitor placed the latest formal draft between us on her meeting-room table.
The first lines covered the house, mortgage position and proposed sale process.
The next section listed bank balances and jointly held savings as of the agreed disclosure date.
Then one broad line gathered “creative assets acquired during marriage” into the same division.
That vague phrase could swallow seven different publishing questions without identifying or answering any of them.
The shared pen name operated through a specific joint licence.
The six old books had individual title schedules, licensed publishing rights and continuing 50/50 royalties.
The optional final volume remained unaccepted and required its own cancellation document.
Saltmere was my independently created and stored manuscript under a newly effective publishing contract.
None of those rights could be accurately divided or transferred by one broad family-law label.
My family solicitor did not claim authority to decide those rights.
She said the phrase had been included to prevent disclosed financial value from disappearing between professional schedules.
Protecting complete financial disclosure after receipt did not require changing authorship or publishing control beforehand.
I asked her to replace the broad line with specific property categories.
The formal family property schedule would list the house, mortgage balance and valuation process.
It would list specifically named bank accounts, disclosure dates and their verified balances.
It would list jointly held savings and any agreed interim restrictions.
It would not state who owned a copyright, pen name, character or manuscript.
Old-book income rights would remain documented through the existing publication schedules, remittances and royalty statements.
The shared licence would remain in the separate settlement and termination process.
My new manuscript and contract would remain in my independent publishing file.
The optional final volume would remain in its cancellation negotiation.
My solicitor added precise cross-references so financial disclosure still reached the correct professionally controlled documents.
The references did not import their rights conclusions into the property schedule.
Oliver's family solicitor joined by recorded conference line and reviewed the replacement wording.
He asked that future Saltmere income remain visible for financial allocation discussions.
Visibility of received money was different from authority to sign the work that earned it.
My solicitor added income disclosure after receipt, subject to the separate publishing contract.
She added an express statement that the family schedule made no copyright or licence determination.
Both solicitors approved the division of document functions, not the final financial split.
The original “creative assets” line remained in the version history marked DELETED — OVERBROAD.
The house, bank and savings entries stayed open for valuation and agreement.
I checked the accessible balance in the jointly used account.
Its current amount was financial information, not proof of ownership of any book.
The moving deposit would secure a flat and end weeks of temporary arrangements.
The tour materials would support booksellers already committed to my new name.
Paying both would require money subject to unresolved joint-account instructions.
I could not solve that shortage by calling Saltmere a marital asset or mine alone.
At 16:06, the revised property schedule entered both family-law files.
My publishing solicitor stored the cross-reference note separately.
Neither professional adopted the other's document as a rights opinion.
The separation made the legal boundary clearer and the cash problem more immediate.
My moving agent's invoice sat beside the marketing supplier's estimate.
Both deadlines fell before the next ordinary joint-account review.
The bank had not yet imposed a new restriction, but either side could request one.
I authorised no transfer while the schedule remained under negotiation.
The balance could fund the moving deposit.
It could fund the already booked bookseller-tour materials.
It could not fund both without a further signature or money from a separate source.