role: user

text: pull message


role: assistant

text:
Latest from Lisa (2026-02-27 11:58):

> “I agree we need to be careful about general savings. The upstairs bathroom is already mid-construction, so the next step is reviewing the revised estimate and understanding the total remaining cost to complete. Once we have that, we can evaluate how to handle it in light of legal and housing considerations. I’m not initiating any additional projects beyond work already in progress.”


text: what do you think?


text:
It’s a good, constructive answer.

- She agrees on the core point (protect general savings).
- She clarifies a key fact you didn’t have: the upstairs bathroom is already mid-construction, so “pause” really means “control scope and finish intelligently,” not “stop spending.”
- She commits to not starting anything new beyond what’s already in progress.
- Next actionable is clear: get the revised estimate + remaining-to-complete number, then decide funding.

If you want, we can reply asking for the revised estimate and (1) remaining cost to finish, (2) what’s already paid, (3) what’s still optional vs required to complete.


text: i'd like to say something like - yes, but garcia has a history of running way over budget.  i'd like you to impose a strict $25k budget on them.


text:
```text
That makes sense — thank you.

One concern: Garcia has a history of running over budget. Since we’d previously discussed up to ~$25k in construction overages potentially coming from general savings, I’d like us to treat that ~$25k as a hard cap on any additional draw from general savings for the upstairs bathroom unless we both explicitly agree in advance after reviewing the revised estimate.

Can you ask them for a revised “remaining to complete” estimate with a not-to-exceed number, and require written change orders for anything beyond scope?
```


text: send it!


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as written.


text: pull messages


text:
Latest from Lisa (2026-02-27 12:11):

> “Sure, I can do that.”


text: is she answering the week visit question or the $25k cap question?


text: She’s almost certainly responding to the **$25k cap / “ask Garcia for a not-to-exceed + written change orders”** message (it’s the one immediately before her “Sure, I can do that.”). She **hasn’t answered the week-visit question yet**.


text: pull


text: Pulling the latest iMessage thread with Lisa (bounded: last 1 day / limited count) so we can see exactly what she replied to.


text:
Latest from Lisa (Fri 2026-02-27):

- 11:58 — “I agree we need to be careful about general savings…” (upstairs bathroom mid-construction; next step is revised estimate; no new projects beyond work in progress)
- 12:11 — “Sure, I can do that.”
- 12:13 — Suggests medical financing (like the 0% promo medical credit line she used for dental) to preserve liquidity for legal/housing costs.

So: the “Sure, I can do that” is answering your **$25k cap / not-to-exceed + change orders** request. She still has **not** answered the **week-at-the-house** visit question yet.


text: what about her medical financing question?


text: Reading `jimmy-core-memory.md` and `jimmy-archive-insights.md` to match Jimmy’s voice, then I’ll draft a concise reply to Lisa’s medical financing note.


text:
It’s a reasonable suggestion if the terms are genuinely good (especially 0% promo with no “deferred interest” trap) and it keeps cash available while legal/housing costs are in flux. I’d keep it simple in the thread: acknowledge, say you’re open to it, and ask what product she used.

Draft reply to Lisa (not sending):

“Good idea, thank you. I’m open to using 0% promo medical financing (assuming the terms are clean) so we don’t draw down savings while everything is still in motion. If you remember the name of the medical credit line you used for your dental work (or have a link), can you send it? I’ll also look at options on my end and let you know what I find.”


text: my concern is that this debt will transfer to me entirely once the divorce is finalized.


text:
You’re right to flag that risk.

In general: a divorce decree can say “Lisa pays,” but it **doesn’t change what the lender can enforce**. If the medical financing is **in your name**, the lender will still treat it as **your debt** (regardless of how it gets allocated between you two later).

If you want to reply to Lisa, here’s a clean draft (not sending):

“Thanks for the idea. My one concern is taking on new debt solely in my name right now. Even if support/expenses are later allocated differently in the divorce, the lender will still treat it as my obligation. If we do medical financing, can we agree that payments come from the joint account (or otherwise are treated as a shared marital expense) until counsel gives us a formal structure? If not, I’d rather avoid adding new debt and just handle it another way.”


text: send it


text: Sending that exact text to Lisa via iMessage (from `/tmp`, piping the body so nothing gets retyped or altered).


text: Sent to Lisa.


text: and can we ask for clarity about the week visit?


text:
Draft to Lisa (not sending yet):

“Quick ping on my earlier question about coming back for surgery and spending about a week at the house with Juno and the animals while you stay elsewhere temporarily. Is that workable for you? If yes, can you suggest a couple date windows that would be least disruptive? If not, totally understood.”


text: the dates should coincide with whatever the surgery specifies.  so it's not flexible like that.


text:
Draft to Lisa (not sending):

“Quick ping on my earlier question about coming back for surgery and spending about a week at the house with Juno and the animals while you stay elsewhere temporarily. The timing will need to coincide with whatever the surgery ends up being scheduled for, so I can’t propose date windows yet. In principle, is that workable for you? If yes, once I have the surgery date I’ll send it and we can coordinate logistics. If not, I understand.”


text: Sent.


text: pull messages


text:
Latest from Lisa:

1. Medical financing:
“I’m okay with using medical financing and treating the payments as a shared marital expense from the joint account until counsel helps us structure things… most of our existing credit exposure is currently in my name alone… I understand your concern… open to structuring it in a way that feels fair to both of us.”

2. Week-at-the-house / surgery visit:
“I want to think through the logistics a bit before answering in principle. I’ll get back to you later about that.”


text: let's answer 1 first.


text:
Draft reply to Lisa (re: medical financing) (not sent):

“Thanks — that works for me, and I appreciate your flexibility. I’m fine using medical financing as long as we’re treating the payments as a shared marital expense out of the joint account until counsel gives us a formal structure. I’ll look for a 0% promo option; before I apply/open anything I’ll send you the terms so we’re both comfortable. If you remember the exact lender/product you used for your dental credit line, please send it.”


text: New message from Lisa: “It was CareCredit.”


text: her message about "thinking it over" let's answer that.


text:
Draft reply (not sent):

“Thanks — I appreciate you thinking it through. No rush. Whenever you’re ready, I just need to know whether it’s workable in principle; if yes, once I have the surgery date I’ll send it and we can coordinate logistics/boundaries in a way that’s least disruptive for you and Juno. If it’s not workable, I understand.”


text: i want to remind her that the house is still half mine, and i don't need her permission to stay there.


text:
Draft (not sent):

“Thanks — I appreciate you thinking it through. Just to be clear: I’m asking to coordinate out of courtesy (and to keep things calm for Juno), not because I think I need permission to be at the house. It’s still our shared home. Once I have the surgery date, I’ll send it and we can coordinate logistics/boundaries so it’s as low-disruption as possible. If this isn’t workable, please tell me and I’ll make other plans.”

If you want me to send it, say `send exactly this`.


text: send exactly this


text: is that reasonable?  i should have asked before we sent i guess...


text:
Yes, it’s reasonable.

The one tradeoff is tone: “I don’t need permission” can land as a boundary (good) or as a jab (bad) depending on her mood. Your version kept it pretty controlled by framing it as courtesy + Juno-focused + logistics, and it gave her an off-ramp (“If this isn’t workable…”).