And suggested that her reluctance to borrow against the house proved she didn't support his ambitions.
Now the records suggested he'd been using their shared resources to maintain a life he deliberately concealed.
Naya felt angry.
But she also felt strangely relieved.
The numbers were painful.
Yet they no longer required her to guess.
The business loan became another problem for her husband.
During the formal financial review, the parties obtained records showing that his company had provided a lender with statements describing the family residence as an available asset.
Naya had never approved using the property as collateral.
No completed mortgage or deed of trust from her had been executed in favor of that lender.
When the discrepancy was identified, the lender requested clarification and suspended further consideration of the proposed financing.
The company's application was reviewed more closely.
Her husband insisted that the house had been included only as part of a general asset summary.
His lawyer argued that an inaccurate description didn't necessarily establish intentional fraud.
Naya's attorney agreed that conclusions should follow the evidence.
But the issue couldn't be dismissed.
The husband had repeatedly represented ownership or control more broadly than the title records supported.
And he had now acknowledged the contrary position in a signed financial agreement.
The lender required accurate documentation before proceeding.
With the property unavailable as security, the business couldn't obtain the financing under the proposed terms.
Her husband's project began falling apart.
He had committed to expenses based on money he expected to receive.
Contractors wanted payment.
A commercial landlord demanded overdue amounts.
And a business partner began asking why important financing assumptions hadn't been disclosed earlier.
For the first time, the husband experienced the consequences of treating facts as flexible.
The mistress contacted Naya about a month after the confrontation.
Her message was brief.
I know you probably hate me, but I need to ask you something.
Naya stared.
She didn't want another conversation with the woman who slapped her.
But the message continued.
Did he really use your money to help pay for my apartment?
Naya considered how to respond.
She wasn't going to disclose private financial records casually.
Nor did she want to become the mistress's source of legal advice.
But she could answer honestly about the basic issue.
She wrote that the financial review had identified expenses requiring explanation and that the legal process would address them.
The woman responded almost immediately.
He told me the apartment was paid for through his company's executive housing program.
Naya looked toward the message.