Part 4: Dinner Above the Table

The restaurant had a small table by the window and chairs that did not match. Julian arrived early and asked whether I preferred to sit facing the room. I said the window was fine. He did not order for me or ask the server to surprise us.

We talked about work first. His company restored older buildings without assuming every original feature could be saved. He described a project where the team had documented a damaged staircase and replaced only the unsafe sections. I told him about a library where lighting changes had made the reading room easier to use without altering its character.

Then he asked about the gala. “Do you always hide under tables?”

“Only when the dessert table is occupied.”

He admitted that he had been avoiding a board member who wanted to introduce him to her niece. The sandwich had come from the staff station after he asked permission. He had found the empty room because the main hall was too loud.

We did not spend the entire dinner discussing our mothers. He told me about his sister's dog, who had eaten a set of paint samples. I told him about a client who wanted a lamp that looked invisible while illuminating an entire staircase. The client had eventually accepted a visible lamp and a safer plan.

When the bill arrived, Julian suggested splitting it. I agreed. He walked with me to the corner and asked if I wanted to see him again. I said yes, provided the next conversation did not take place under furniture.

The following week Nina opened the second cabinet with the building manager and a locksmith present. It contained invoices, correspondence, and a box of photographs. The documents did not reveal a dramatic secret. They showed that Helen and Teresa had purchased equipment together, but the final payment record was missing.

Nina's attorney asked both women for any receipts or correspondence they retained. Helen found a ledger in her attic. Teresa found a bank statement and a letter she had never mailed. The letter described her frustration but did not establish whether the payment had been completed.

Julian and I agreed not to interpret the documents for our mothers. They needed their own advice and a chance to explain what they remembered. Nina's project could proceed on a separate schedule while the ownership of the old drawings was reviewed.

My lighting studio prepared a proposal based on a new assessment, not on the disputed drawings. We measured the rooms, asked potential users about their needs, and included alternatives for the exhibition space. Julian's company prepared a restoration proposal with its own budget and timeline.

Helen called to ask whether I thought she should apologize to Teresa. I said I could not decide that for her. I asked what she believed she had done that warranted an apology.

“I assumed she had taken clients because two of them called her after we closed,” she said. “I never asked them why.”

“Do you want to ask her now?”

“I don't know if she wants to hear from me.”

“You can ask that too.”

Helen was quiet. “You're better at this than I am.”

“I have fewer years invested in being right.”

After the call, I reviewed the lighting proposal once more. The building needed clear paths, adjustable light, and a budget that Nina could understand. The old partnership might explain its history, but the new project would depend on decisions made now.