Medical expenses

[johnw]

Dear Soc
             We live in NJ and have shared custody of our children. In child support agreement ex wife is responsible for 1st $250 of out of pocket medical expenses , then we split them 50/50.
Our son now has a $2000 ortho bill. We had 2 options to pay. The 1st was 1 year at no interest, and the 2nd was all up front and save 5%. I told my ex wife twice, and did not have $1000 right now, and I wanted the 1 year no interest plan. When it came up that come 2005 she will still have to pay the 1st $250 of out of pocket expenses she got angry. She then went out and paid the full amount to avoid paying the $250 out of pocket medical in 2005 all on these braces, and is now demanding the money from me. I told her I still don't have the money, and that I would pay her monthly, my portion, just like I told her I wanted to do in the 1st place. I felt just because she went out and spent the money, knowing I didn't have, it didn't oblige me to now pay it all to her. She has now filed a motion in court to get all her money.

Is the judge likely to tell me I owe it all to her now, or am I correct in what I say, that I'm part of the decision making process with our kids, and she deliberately went out and spent this money knowing full well I didn't have the $1000 to pay up front, and that offering to pay her monthly will be ok?
Thanks

[socrateaser]

>Is the judge likely to tell me I owe it all to her now, or am
>I correct in what I say, that I'm part of the decision making
>process with our kids, and she deliberately went out and spent
>this money knowing full well I didn't have the $1000 to pay up
>front, and that offering to pay her monthly will be ok?

Interesting little problem. Bottom line is this: if she incurs at least $500 for new healthcare next year (in addition to the braces), then it's a wash, and you will have both spent the exact same amount, regardless of the year in which it was spent (her: $1,375; you: $1,125).

Now, if you can show, that every year, so far, there have been at least $500 in new healthcare expenses, then your case is that she comes to the court with unclean hands (i.e., "clean hands doctrine", which states that those who seek equity from the court, must do equity in the issue before the court, (equity = fairness)), because her actions will not actually save her one cent, but you will be forced to borrow money in order to pay the bill early, when you could have paid it over time. And, in fact, your ex has hurt herself, too, because a 0% loan is the equivalent of a discount from fair market value. Thus, you should be entitled recover the amount of money that you would have saved, had she not taken an action expressly intended to cause you an injury).

Do the math -- I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

[johnw]

Thanks Soc
                2004 was the 1st year our medical expenses were set up this way. If you take out the cost of the braces from 2004 we only spent a total of approx $350, of which she paid the 1st $250. What is also funny, is she paid this bill on a credit card. She must think it more important to force me to pay now than to pay 22% interest when we could have done it interest free for a year.
My concern is will the court not care that I told her up front twice I did not have the money, and simply tell me I owe it now, and it is not her problem I wanted the payment plan?
Is it not also relavent that we have shared custody (I have the children exactly 50% of the time) and she, in essence, didn't consider my input into how we pay this large bill?
In your opinion, do I have enough of a case that the court may agree with me, and allow me to make payments to her?
Thanks

[socrateaser]

>In your opinion, do I have enough of a case that the court may
>agree with me, and allow me to make payments to her?

OK, let's try this argument: although the dentist was willing to carry the $2,000 at 0% for 12 months, the entire cost of braces was incurred during 2004, because that is the year in which you are legally liable for the entire amount. So, if your ex had allowed the $100 per month payment plan, she would not have been obligated to pay the extra $250 on the $2,000, because that bill did not arise in 2005. Her action, thus caused you an injury, because you will now lose the discount that is implied in a 0% loan. Therefore, she comes to the court with unclean hands, and the court should deny her request for full reimbursement now, and instead, order her to accept payments in the amount of $100 per month.

Ya, that works -- you should win on that theory.