View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2014, 06:16 PM
stripes stripes is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road

The payor (Parent A) should increase his CS payments accordingly now that both parties have the NOAs. (BTW the other parent (Parent B) is not "demanding" anything here, this is a completely reasonable expectation. Parent A is not conceding anything by paying what he is legally required to pay).

As for the S7 expenses: I am going to assume that Parent A has been paying his $158 per month promptly for the entire year, so that what is at issue is the residual amount of S7 which exceed $158 x 12. (If Parent A has not been paying promptly, then he's created this mess by not abiding by the court order, giving license to Parent B to do the same)

Parent A has a choice, he can either

a) pay 50% of the residual amount based on receipts submitted by Parent B. The residual amount here is not ridiculous if both parents are earning in the six figures. It's also not unreasonable for costs to go up as child gets older (no more day care, but other activities cost more). Tell Parent A that in future expenses need to be cleared before they are incurred, not on presentation of receipts. Save energy for more important battles.

b) not pay any of the residual amount. Engage in pointless back-and-forth with Parent B, which may or may not result in court costs which far exceed the amount being haggled over.

These parents have a bad court order, which is the source of the problem. A statement that A will pay B $158 per month now and forever isn't going to work out in the long run. Clearly A thinks he is doing everything necessary by paying $158 (following the letter of the agreement); clearly B thinks the situation has changed and $158 no longer represents A's half of the expenses (following the spirit of the agreement). I can see how each parent believes they are right, and the fault lies with whoever drew up the court order.

If I were Parent A, I would respond to Parent B's letter with a proposed agreement that in exchange for A paying B the residual amount for 2013, going forward Parent A will approve Parent B's expenditures before they are incurred, and that expenses will be reconciled once (or twice) a year. That's all you really need to avoid this mess.
Reply With Quote