Derek’s deposition lasted almost four hours.
By then, he was no longer claiming the withdrawals were mine.
The bank footage made that impossible.
He was no longer claiming Patricia had simply helped “move money” in an innocent way.
Lauren’s cooperation and the messages made that impossible too.
What remained was Derek’s line:
I did not know how she would do it.
Daniel did not need to prove criminal conspiracy for the divorce.
He needed Derek to admit what he knew about the savings before the papers were filed.
The questions were simple.
“Did you want the savings account reduced before filing?”
Derek looked at his lawyer.
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“I thought Angela would use the money against me.”
“For legal fees?”
“Among other things.”
“Did you have legal fees too?”
“Yes.”
“Did you have access to money for them?”
“Yes.”
“Did Angela?”
“She had income.”
That answer made me furious.
Income.
My nurse paycheck.
The savings I built was supposed to be mine to defend myself with only if I had not saved it?
Daniel continued.
“Did you ask Angela to agree to move the savings elsewhere?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“I knew she would say no.”
There it was again.
“Did you tell Patricia the approximate account balance?”
“Yes.”
“Did you ask how much remained after money started leaving?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Angela was not making those withdrawals?”
Derek hesitated.
Then:
“Yes.”
That admission changed everything emotionally.
He had watched me panic.
He had watched me search statements.
He had told me I must have forgotten.
Daniel asked:
“When your wife told you she had never been inside that branch, did you believe her?”
A long pause.
“Yes.”
“Then why did you tell her she had probably spent the money?”
Derek looked at the table.
“I was trying to keep the plan from falling apart.”
The room went silent.
Not the criminal plan necessarily.
His divorce plan.
Still enough.
Daniel asked:
“What plan?”
“To file after finances were separated.”
“Separated by whose authority?”
“My mother was helping.”
“Did Angela authorize your mother?”
“No.”
Again.
Consent bypassed.
My marriage had become full of people using words like help and protect for decisions that required my agreement.
Derek’s attorney objected to several questions about Lauren because Derek maintained he never met her before court.
Evidence supported that possibility.
His phone records did not show Lauren.
Her phone did not show Derek.
Patricia had been the direct recruiter.
That distinction mattered.
Derek could be deeply responsible for draining the account without personally selecting the impersonator.
People wanted a cleaner villain chain.
I wanted accuracy.
Daniel then asked about the boat.
Derek bristled.
“It was my hobby.”
“So was Angela’s nursing a hobby?”
He looked up.
I had heard him use that phrase for years.
Your job is your hobby, babe.
I’m the one taking real risks.
Now he looked embarrassed.
“No.”
“Did Angela’s earnings fund household expenses?”
“Yes.”
“Did she make regular transfers to savings?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know the savings was intended for a home purchase?”
“Yes.”
“Did you spend marital funds on the boat?”
“Yes.”
No need for a speech.
The numbers would handle.
The boat appraisal came later.
Hull.
Motor.
Trailer.
Electronics.
Loan.
Net value.
Derek could keep it if value was assigned correctly.
I did not want it.
I wanted my savings restored to the accounting and my retirement protected fairly.
The criminal case involving Patricia moved toward resolution.
Lauren’s cooperation agreement included restitution obligations and testimony.
Patricia’s lawyer negotiated separately.
I was consulted as victim.
I did not control charging decisions.
That was important.
People asked me whether I wanted Patricia “locked up.”
I wanted accountability.
Safety.
My name cleared.
My ring returned.
Money restored as much as legally possible.
The prosecutor determined what sentence to recommend.
I was not running the state.
The bank also offered a settlement.
After reviewing its procedures, surveillance, and the fraudulent identification, First Federal agreed to restore a substantial portion of the $61,000 subject to assignment/subrogation terms so it could pursue responsible parties without allowing double recovery.
Daniel and the prosecutor coordinated carefully.
If the bank reimbursed me, restitution calculations had to account.
No collecting the same dollar from bank, Patricia, Lauren, and divorce.
I signed nothing until Daniel explained.
He joked:
“You are impossible now.”
“Good.”
The bank settlement also required no false statement that I had made the withdrawals.
My account history would be corrected.
Internal fraud flags.
Credit concerns addressed.
That mattered almost as much as money.
For months, I had been “the customer who withdrew and denied it.”
Now the bank’s own investigation recognized impersonation.
Mrs. Wilkes wrote me a personal note.
I did not need it legally.
I kept it.
She wrote:
I wish I had asked one more question.
I replied:
I wish I had asked many more questions in my marriage. Neither of us caused what other people chose to do.
That was the closest thing to peace I had that month.
Derek’s deposition ended with one final question.
Daniel asked:
“If Angela had known your mother planned to remove the savings, would she have agreed?”
“No.”
“Did you know that?”
“Yes.”
The best evidence is often boring.
No secret recording.
No dramatic confession.
A man saying:
I knew she would say no.
That was the point.
Everything else was mechanism.
The bank settlement required me to sign a release limited to the banking claims it resolved.
I read it three times.
Daniel explained what I was giving up and what I was not.
It did not release Derek from divorce claims.
Did not release Patricia or Lauren beyond the coordinated recovery rights defined.
Did not force secrecy about my experience.
The bank requested confidentiality about the settlement amount.
We negotiated language allowing disclosure to tax advisers, lawyers, regulators, and as legally required.
I accepted.
That kind of confidentiality felt different from Derek’s later demand.
It protected a negotiated bank settlement, not a false public story about my own conduct.
The distinction was subtle but important.
I was not anti-confidentiality.
I was anti-silence used to make another person’s version of reality mandatory.
Reading that release carefully became an early rehearsal for the divorce settlement.
I could sign something complex without fear if I understood its scope.
After the deposition, Derek asked through his lawyer whether we could resolve the divorce before his mother’s criminal case concluded.
Yes, potentially.
Daniel was clear that my financial future should not be held hostage to a criminal timetable we did not control.
We could settle based on evidence available, build adjustment provisions where needed, and coordinate later restitution.
That relieved me.
I had unconsciously started believing I could not move on until every legal system finished.
But criminal cases can take time.
Bank recovery can take time.
Life cannot remain in a courthouse hallway indefinitely.
The divorce needed enough certainty, not cosmic completeness.
The deposition transcript arrived a week later. I read only the portions Daniel marked because I had no desire to relive four hours word for word.
Seeing Derek’s answers in black ink changed something. Spoken lies can feel slippery; a transcript sits still.
I no longer needed to remember his tone. The record showed what he admitted and what he avoided.
That helped me stop rehearsing the room.
Click here to continue reading: PART 6: Appraisals and mediation turned the boat, retirement, and restored savings into numbers while I refused to trade my right to speak truthfully for a cleaner financial settlement
Mrs. Wilkes identified the blonde woman in court, and the first evidence showed someone had used my old license, signature information, and grandmother’s ring to become me
Part 5 of 16
