one-sided financial situation w/ complications

[Bali Hai]

Sorry, recommending that someone commit perjury is disgusting.

You're not sorry, so just quit it.

It took you long enough to respond, I know, you had a catfish noodling tournament again.

OP NEVER stated that there was any agreement to consider the wife's boobie surgery back in February. That's a big stretch from simply going with her, I'm sure at her request, and ultimately saying no, that's too much money.

That's like browsing in a store and the salesperson sees you looking at their merchandise. Judge, we had an agreement to consider the expense, BS!!

But it's not surprising that you took the liberty to mold your perception of the facts into the wife's favor.

 

[mistoffolees]

You're not sorry, so just quit it.

It took you long enough to respond, I know, you had a catfish noodling tournament again.

OP NEVER stated that there was any agreement to consider the wife's boobie surgery back in February. That's a big stretch from simply going with her, I'm sure at her request, and ultimately saying no, that's too much money.

That's like browsing in a store and the salesperson sees you looking at their merchandise. Judge, we had an agreement to consider the expense, BS!!

But it's not surprising that you took the liberty to mold your perception of the facts into the wife's favor.

I didn't say there was an agreement to do the surgery.

I said:
"2. They agreed to consider the expense in February and had their first appointment then - 6 months ago."

That is an absolutely factual statement. They went for the first appointment and apparently DID consider the expense (and decided that it was too expensive at the time).

You said that you would deny that to the grave - which would be perjury.

Not surprising that you'd be happy to perjure yourself to try to take money form your ex.

Oh, and btw, you have probably forgotten that in another thread, I've been telling a woman that she needs to lower her expectations and won't (and shouldn't) get lifetime alimony. My 'pro-woman' bias is only in your head. You're the one with an obvious and blatant bias.

 

[pt2011m]

Regarding the consultation, I had verbally agreed with her that if we could afford it & it was done for the right reasons (morally & to eliminate physical pains) then I would be ok with her going through with it. The cost of carrying that out said otherwise. The decision to not go through with it at the time was hers, as she said we had other larger debts to pay off instead. In the month prior, we had discussed ways in which we could pay off those debts. She left before we were to start significantly doing so.

 

[LdiJ]

Regarding the consultation, I had verbally agreed with her that if we could afford it & it was done for the right reasons (morally & to eliminate physical pains) then I would be ok with her going through with it. The cost of carrying that out said otherwise. The decision to not go through with it at the time was hers, as she said we had other larger debts to pay off instead. In the month prior, we had discussed ways in which we could pay off those debts. She left before we were to start significantly doing so.

Now I am confused. You said in your first post, "breast augmentation". However that is cosmetic and would have nothing to do with eliminating physical pain.

A breast reduction is generally done to eliminate physical pain, and that is a LOT different with different effects legally. It is not cosmetic in nature.

 

[mistoffolees]

Regarding the consultation, I had verbally agreed with her that if we could afford it & it was done for the right reasons (morally & to eliminate physical pains) then I would be ok with her going through with it. The cost of carrying that out said otherwise. The decision to not go through with it at the time was hers, as she said we had other larger debts to pay off instead. In the month prior, we had discussed ways in which we could pay off those debts. She left before we were to start significantly doing so.

As LD says, if it was done for physical pain reasons, then there's even less chance that you can consider it a non-marital expense.

 

[pt2011m]

It was by no means a reduction. She wanted them lifted (self conscious issues) and she had said that there was pain from gravitational pull over time. At the consultation, the implants she wanted were to help 'firm up'...and ultimately be more aesthetically pleasing to what she wanted to look like. She will swear day & night that she did it b/c of pain issues, but the real reasons lie in her own physical/emotional image of herself. This was not a necessary surgery. but an elective surgery. That was the reason behind my agreement to her doing it...if it was for the 'right' reasons and not to just be superficial. Given the timing of the surgery and her not telling me about it, the superficial aspect becomes a huge factor in her decision to have the surgery. But again, she will say to anyone that she did it 'b/c of pain she was having'. Physical pain? To a degree. Emotional & self-image pains? Yes.

 

[Bali Hai]

It was by no means a reduction. She wanted them lifted (self conscious issues) and she had said that there was pain from gravitational pull over time. At the consultation, the implants she wanted were to help 'firm up'...and ultimately be more aesthetically pleasing to what she wanted to look like. She will swear day & night that she did it b/c of pain issues, but the real reasons lie in her own physical/emotional image of herself. This was not a necessary surgery. but an elective surgery. That was the reason behind my agreement to her doing it...if it was for the 'right' reasons and not to just be superficial. Given the timing of the surgery and her not telling me about it, the superficial aspect becomes a huge factor in her decision to have the surgery. But again, she will say to anyone that she did it 'b/c of pain she was having'. Physical pain? To a degree. Emotional & self-image pains? Yes.

Sure she will do that, and misto will be right there to back her up.

 

[mistoffolees]

It was by no means a reduction. She wanted them lifted (self conscious issues) and she had said that there was pain from gravitational pull over time. At the consultation, the implants she wanted were to help 'firm up'...and ultimately be more aesthetically pleasing to what she wanted to look like. She will swear day & night that she did it b/c of pain issues, but the real reasons lie in her own physical/emotional image of herself. This was not a necessary surgery. but an elective surgery. That was the reason behind my agreement to her doing it...if it was for the 'right' reasons and not to just be superficial. Given the timing of the surgery and her not telling me about it, the superficial aspect becomes a huge factor in her decision to have the surgery. But again, she will say to anyone that she did it 'b/c of pain she was having'. Physical pain? To a degree. Emotional & self-image pains? Yes.

Bottom line is that she was in pain - including physical pain.

As you were told, even if it was purely cosmetic, there is no guarantee that you'd get the money back. Since you admit that it was at least partly for pain issues, the odds of getting your money back decline even further. Depending on the level of pain, if a doctor says that it was medically necessary, your chances of getting the money back disappear.

But it's clear that we're not getting the entire story from you. First, it was breast augmentation. Then it was 'lifting' surgery, at least partially for pain reduction. If you want the advice to mean anything at all, you need to be completely honest in the information you provide.

 

[pt2011m]

To be perfectly clear, the consultation we went to was for to have them lifted (yes, some physical pain...but more life-long self conscious issues prominently). After showing what a lift would do, the doctor suggested implants to fill them out and give them a more aesthetic appearance. Upon hearing this, she wanted a larger size than what she would be left with after the lift. Trying on different sample sizes, her eyes got bigger as those sizes increased. She chose a very full size for the estimate. The estimate was given, the cost was high. She said we had other debts to handle instead. Medically necessary? No. Elective surgery? Yes. If pain was a bigger issue to her, this would have been done a long time ago. This is why I say she did it for aesthetic reasons, especially given the timing of it all. She is very fit and toned and, at the time of the surgery, was pushing herself to look the best she's ever looked in her life.

 

[LdiJ]

Bottom line is that she was in pain - including physical pain.

As you were told, even if it was purely cosmetic, there is no guarantee that you'd get the money back. Since you admit that it was at least partly for pain issues, the odds of getting your money back decline even further. Depending on the level of pain, if a doctor says that it was medically necessary, your chances of getting the money back disappear.

But it's clear that we're not getting the entire story from you. First, it was breast augmentation. Then it was 'lifting' surgery, at least partially for pain reduction. If you want the advice to mean anything at all, you need to be completely honest in the information you provide.

And, when you hire an attorney to handle this divorce, its critical that your attorney know the exact truth, and not the way you want to spin it. There is nothing that destroys an attorney's credibility more in court, than getting "suprised" by discovering his client didn't give him the whole truth. Attorneys have been known to "fire" clients for that.

Your wife did NOT get a breast augmentation. Not in any way, shape or form....and who are you to judge another person's level of pain?

 

[Bali Hai]

To be perfectly clear, the consultation we went to was for to have them lifted (yes, some physical pain...but more life-long self conscious issues prominently). After showing what a lift would do, the doctor suggested implants to fill them out and give them a more aesthetic appearance. Upon hearing this, she wanted a larger size than what she would be left with after the lift. Trying on different sample sizes, her eyes got bigger as those sizes increased. She chose a very full size for the estimate. The estimate was given, the cost was high. She said we had other debts to handle instead. Medically necessary? No. Elective surgery? Yes. If pain was a bigger issue to her, this would have been done a long time ago. This is why I say she did it for aesthetic reasons, especially given the timing of it all. She is very fit and toned and, at the time of the surgery, was pushing herself to look the best she's ever looked in her life.

One thing that you're going to learn through the divorce process is that any doubt about what really took place will go to your wife's favor.

This issue has become tainted, and, I agree with the others, your chances of recovering the surgery funds in question will be slim to none.

 

[stealth2]

To be perfectly clear, the consultation we went to was for to have them lifted (yes, some physical pain...but more life-long self conscious issues prominently). After showing what a lift would do, the doctor suggested implants to fill them out and give them a more aesthetic appearance. Upon hearing this, she wanted a larger size than what she would be left with after the lift. Trying on different sample sizes, her eyes got bigger as those sizes increased. She chose a very full size for the estimate. The estimate was given, the cost was high. She said we had other debts to handle instead. Medically necessary? No. Elective surgery? Yes. If pain was a bigger issue to her, this would have been done a long time ago. This is why I say she did it for aesthetic reasons, especially given the timing of it all. She is very fit and toned and, at the time of the surgery, was pushing herself to look the best she's ever looked in her life.

This is your *opinion*. Can you prove it as the truth?

 

[mistoffolees]

One thing that you're going to learn through the divorce process is that any doubt about what really took place will go to your wife's favor.

In case there's anyone here who doesn't know about Bali's bias, this is most certainly not true.

Like any legal proceeding, the person who proves their case best will win. Actually, I'd go even further. I'd say that the person who proves their case loses less, but no one really wins.

In my mind, an adversarial divorce reminds me of the movie War Games. The only way to win is not to play. Almost everyone (except the attorneys, of course) would be far better off if people approached divorce with the intent to come up with a solution that's fair to everyone rather than seeing how they can get more - and/or punish the other side.

See "War of the Roses" with Danny Devito.

 

[Bali Hai]

In case there's anyone here who doesn't know about Bali's bias, this is most certainly not true.

Like any legal proceeding, the person who proves their case best will win. Actually, I'd go even further. I'd say that the person who proves their case loses less, but no one really wins.

In my mind, an adversarial divorce reminds me of the movie War Games. The only way to win is not to play. Almost everyone (except the attorneys, of course) would be far better off if people approached divorce with the intent to come up with a solution that's fair to everyone rather than seeing how they can get more - and/or punish the other side.

See "War of the Roses" with Danny Devito.

I agree with everything you said here with the exception of your erroneous assessment that I'm bias.

I've seen War of the Roses several times and came to the conclusion that if the wife had been a little bit more mature, the divorce wouldn' have happened in the first place.

It takes BOTH parties to approach the divorce with the intent to come up with a solution that's fair to everyone. As soon as one party gets greedy & vindictive, tells lies, etc., all bets are off. People will defend themselves, and that's what happened in the War of the Roses. The wife went nuts and the husband was defending himself.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

She can claim she had them firmed up for pain issues, however, that won't fly absent proof. A 5lb. boobie is a 5lb. boobie, whether it is sagging 7 inches and sticking out 4, or sagging 5 inches and sticking out 6.