THE BANKER AND THE TEACHER 


 

 WRITTEN BY SAM NARCISSE 

THIS STORY INVOLVES A BANKER AND A TEACHER. THEY WERE MARRIED. THEY HAD TWO CHILDREN. THEY DIVORCED 11 YEARS AFTER THEY GOT MARRIED. THE BANKER HAD STOCK OPTIONS. THE TEACHER DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS. THEY VESTED WHILE THE BANKER AND TEACHER WERE STILL MARRIED. THEY GOT DIVORCED ON APRIL FOOL'S DAY. THE BANKER MADE TRIPLE THE SALARY THE TEACHER DID. THE BANKER DIDN'T PAY ANY CHILD SUPPORT OR ALIMONY TO THE TEACHER AT ANYTIME AFTER THE DIVORCE. THE BANKER DEDUCTED A GIFT FROM THE TEACHER'S PARENT'S THAT WAS THE TEACHER'S ALONE. THE BANKER PUT IN A HYPOTHETICAL REALTOR FEE EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS WRONG AND NOT ALLOWED. THE TEACHER WAS TRUSTING AND WANTED TO AVOID CONFLICT. THE TEACHER DIDN'T HIRE AN ATTORNEY. THE BANKER DID HIRE AN ATTORNEY. THE TEACHER WAS TOLD THE WRONG DATE FOR THE FINAL DIVORCE HEARING AND WAS WITH THE SON AND A FRIEND IN FLORIDA. THE BANKER DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS. THE BANKER DIDN'T TELL THE TEACHER ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS. A YEAR LATER THE BANKER SOLD THE STOCK OPTIONS FOR $520,000. THE BANKER KEPT ALL THAT MONEY AND STILL THE TEACHER DIDN'T KNOW. THE TEACHER AND THE BANKER HAD AGREED TO CHECK 3 YEARS AFTER THE DIVORCE TO SEE IF EITHER NEEDED CHILD SUPPORT TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN. THE TEACHER PICKED THE TWO CHILDREN UP FROM SCHOOL EVERYDAY. THE TEACHER TOOK THE CHILDREN TO ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES AND FED THEM DINNER. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME AT THE TEACHER'S PARENTS HOUSE IN THE MOUNTAINS. WHEN THE TEACHER ASKED THE BANKER TO SHARE THEIR SALARY THE BANKER SAID NO. THE TEACHER DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT SO THE TEACHER TRIED FIGURING IT OUT ON THE INTERNET. THE TEACHER WASN'T PREPARED FOR WHAT THE TEACHER FOUND. THE TEACHER FOUND SOMETHING CALLED "STOCK OPTIONS" WHEN THE TEACHER GOOGLED THE NAME OF THE BANKER. THE TEACHER WASN'T EXACTLY SURE WHAT A STOCK OPTION WAS AS COMPARED TO STOCK. THE TEACHER KNEW THE BANKER HAD STOCK. THE TEACHER DID KNOW WHAT $520,000 WAS. THE TEACHER WAS VERY SAD. THE BANKER HAD LIED. THE TEACHER WONDERED WHAT ELSE ABOUT THE DIVORCE AND THE MARRIAGE WAS A LIE. THE TEACHER ASKED THE BANKER WHERE IN THE DIVORCE AGREEMENT THE STOCK OPTIONS WERE LISTED. THE BANKER DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. THE BANKER YELLED AT THE TEACHER AND STARTED CALLING THE TEACHER CRAZY. THE TEACHER DECIDED THAT THE BEST THING TO DO WAS OFFER A SOLUTION. THE SOLUTION WAS TO PUT THE $520,000 IN A TRUST FUND FOR THE TWO CHILDREN WITH BOTH THE BANKER AND THE TEACHER AS TRUSTEES. THE BANKER TOLD THE TEACHER THAT THE TEACHER'S NAME WOULD NEVER GO ON THE "MONEY". THE TEACHER ASKED THE TEACHER'S PARENTS FOR HELP TO HIRE A LAWYER. THE TEACHER'S PARENTS SAID NO. THE TEACHER DECIDED THE RIGHT THING TO DO WAS TO HIRE A LAWYER ANYWAY. THE TEACHER HAD TO USE CREDIT CARDS AND A 2ND MORTGAGE TO HIRE A GOOD LAWYER. THE LAWYER TOLD THE TEACHER THAT THE BANKER HAD TO AT LEAST TELL THE COURT ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS AND THE BANKER HADN'T DONE THAT. THE BANKER HAD WRITTEN "NA" NEXT TO THAT SPOT IN THE BANKER'S COURT FILING. THE BANKER  MADE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS THE YEAR OF THE STOCK OPTIONS. THE TEACHER MADE $53000. THE TEACHER WHO STILL WAS DOING MOST OF THE PARENTING WHICH THE TEACHER LOVED HAD VERY LITTLE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE EXPENSES. THE BANKER WAS EVEN PAYING A GIRL $150 A WEEK TO BACK UP THE TEACHER AFTER SCHOOL. THE TEACHER DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS AND DIDN'T USE THE BABYSITTER. THE BANKER WAS TRYING TO MAKE A FRIEND WITH A NEIGHBOR BY "SHARING" THE BABYSITTER EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE. BOTH THE TEACHER AND THE BANKER ASKED THE JUDGE FOR MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN. THE TEACHER WAS SUPRISED SINCE THE BANKER HAD MADE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. THE BANKER WANTED THE TEACHER TO PAY THE BANKER $46 A WEEK. THE TEACHER THOUGHT THAT WAS THE BANKER TRYING TO BE MEAN AND GET REVENGE. THE TEACHER ASKED FOR $280 A WEEK FROM THE JUDGE TO PAY FOR THE THINGS THAT THE TEACHER WAS SPENDING ON THE KIDS. THE TEACHER WAS ALREADY GETTING IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE. THE TEACHER BEGGED THE TEACHER'S PARENTS FOR HELP AND THEY GAVE THE TEACHER ABOUT $20,000. BOTH THE BANKER AND TEACHER HAD THEIR LAWYERS STATE THEIR CASE AND SUARE THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. BOTH THE BANKER AND THE TEACHER TOLD THE JUDGE THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. THE TEACHER SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS. THE BANKER SAID THE TEACHER WAS LYING AND COULD PROVE IT. NONE OF THE PAPERS THE BANKER HAD COULD PROVE THE TEACHER KNEW ABOUT THE STOCK OPTIONS. THE TEACHER'S LAWYER REMINDED THE COURT THAT THE BANKER HADN'T LISTED THE STOCK OPTIONS FOR THE JUDGE TO KNOW ABOUT THEM. HOWEVER, IT WAS THREE YEARS AFTER THE DIVORCE. WHAT WOULD THE JUDGE DECIDE?