Tweet
I think I may know the answer to my question already, but would appreciate feedback.
Background: 50/50 shared custody of D8, table offset, S7 proportionate to incomes, which are nearly equal and quite adequate. Divorce order specifies what expenses are S7, mainly just extracurriculars plus major winter expenses. We are supposed to reconcile S7 twice a year, June and Dec. I pay nearly all S7 expenses, so reconciliation consists of me trying to get ex to reimburse his share. Ex does not like to do so.
I sent the June reconciliation - added up expenses, all as specified in the divorce order, with receipts, and worked out that ex owed me roughly $800. Ex sent back a nastygram with his list of what he claimed were S7 expenses - things which are neither specified in the relevant paragraph of the order nor admissable under the FCSG - things like haircuts, Halloween costumes, bathing suits, "nightly care costs" for a few nights D8 stayed at his place when I was away on business, etc. Remarkably enough, his math worked out such that I owed him $800 as well. He concluded with "S7 expenses are now reconciled".
My instinct was to reply "no they aren't, but I don't see the point in further discussion" and to say that I would register the divorce order with MEP (Alberta equivalent of FRO), submit an expense report, and let the system take it over, as we obviously weren't able to resolve it ourselves. I feel a bit ridiculous going to MEP over $800, but could foresee years of this nonsense going on, and would rather outsource this than let ex use continue to use S7 as an excuse for attention-seeking behavior.
I did not send the email because a) I felt a bit ridiculous, see above; b) I really did not want to deal with the nastygram tornado ex was likely to unleash at the mention of MEP; c) I don't want to act rashly when communicating with ex and wanted to make sure this was the right course to take.
Since mid-June, ex has become a bit easier to deal with for some reason. No crazy email rants for the last month, no weird legal threats, pretty businesslike. He even agreed to register and pay for one of D8's extracurricular activities in the fall. Which is pretty close to the situation I want.
I am now reluctant to upset the current balance by following through with MEP, because he will have a fit about that. At the same time, I do not want to give the impression that my silence implies that I agree with his off-the-wall S7 lists, if I don't reply to the "S7 expenses are now reconciled" email.
So my question: if I hold off with registering the divorce order and take no action to collect the outstanding S7 amount, am I tacitly agreeing with his S7 logic? It's abundantly clear that he has no basis for the claims he is making - he's trying to a) get out of paying; and b) provoke me. I'm willing to forego collecting the $800 if the tradeoff is not having to deal with craziness, but I am concerned that I am setting a bad precedent if I don't explicitly inform him that I do not agree with his S7 pretzel-logic.
In other words, could my silence be interpreted as acquiescence to his view of things?
Background: 50/50 shared custody of D8, table offset, S7 proportionate to incomes, which are nearly equal and quite adequate. Divorce order specifies what expenses are S7, mainly just extracurriculars plus major winter expenses. We are supposed to reconcile S7 twice a year, June and Dec. I pay nearly all S7 expenses, so reconciliation consists of me trying to get ex to reimburse his share. Ex does not like to do so.
I sent the June reconciliation - added up expenses, all as specified in the divorce order, with receipts, and worked out that ex owed me roughly $800. Ex sent back a nastygram with his list of what he claimed were S7 expenses - things which are neither specified in the relevant paragraph of the order nor admissable under the FCSG - things like haircuts, Halloween costumes, bathing suits, "nightly care costs" for a few nights D8 stayed at his place when I was away on business, etc. Remarkably enough, his math worked out such that I owed him $800 as well. He concluded with "S7 expenses are now reconciled".
My instinct was to reply "no they aren't, but I don't see the point in further discussion" and to say that I would register the divorce order with MEP (Alberta equivalent of FRO), submit an expense report, and let the system take it over, as we obviously weren't able to resolve it ourselves. I feel a bit ridiculous going to MEP over $800, but could foresee years of this nonsense going on, and would rather outsource this than let ex use continue to use S7 as an excuse for attention-seeking behavior.
I did not send the email because a) I felt a bit ridiculous, see above; b) I really did not want to deal with the nastygram tornado ex was likely to unleash at the mention of MEP; c) I don't want to act rashly when communicating with ex and wanted to make sure this was the right course to take.
Since mid-June, ex has become a bit easier to deal with for some reason. No crazy email rants for the last month, no weird legal threats, pretty businesslike. He even agreed to register and pay for one of D8's extracurricular activities in the fall. Which is pretty close to the situation I want.
I am now reluctant to upset the current balance by following through with MEP, because he will have a fit about that. At the same time, I do not want to give the impression that my silence implies that I agree with his off-the-wall S7 lists, if I don't reply to the "S7 expenses are now reconciled" email.
So my question: if I hold off with registering the divorce order and take no action to collect the outstanding S7 amount, am I tacitly agreeing with his S7 logic? It's abundantly clear that he has no basis for the claims he is making - he's trying to a) get out of paying; and b) provoke me. I'm willing to forego collecting the $800 if the tradeoff is not having to deal with craziness, but I am concerned that I am setting a bad precedent if I don't explicitly inform him that I do not agree with his S7 pretzel-logic.
In other words, could my silence be interpreted as acquiescence to his view of things?
Comment