To expect Sunday as the agreement -update

[TipJarTroubadours]

I'm not sure if anyone actually wants an update, but I was reading another thread where an update was promised and I was disappointed to find that there wasn't an update. Then I remembered I was just as bad. Although I did feel a bit bruised being compared to a rapist.

Link to original thread below but I've also copied the first post in the next reply as I hate clicking on links.

The. Question on the original was really

Am I being unreasonable to expect my nephew to do what he agreed to in return for accommodation?

Well we all met at my parents at Christmas, my mum who initially thought I was BU, didn't realise that he wasn't paying rent in return for attending Sunday Lunch and was then cross at me for giving things away for free.

My parents then offered to help pay towards accommodation with no strings, but said it would have to come out of his inheritance - my sister didn't want this so it was agreed he would attend after Christmas.

He attended for three weeks and then stopped. I told my sister but said he could live here rent free until the end of the first year but that he can not come back in September. I'm not sure she believes that we will follow through.

For the avoidance of doubt we are not religious, and I guess this is no longer really an AIBU, as I don't think we are.

I think your rule is beyond weird, but if you made it clear at the outset then he knew what he was getting himself into.

Like PP, I’m really wondering why this is so important to you.

It’s giving Misery vibes

I think that OP could come back and say “I want my nephew to come to a weekly dinner so I can check that he is well and properly fed” and people would still find a way to criticise.

Yes, it’s an unusual rule. Yes, it probably clashes with what a student would think of as a fun Sunday evening (just adding that because some posters seem to have missed that it’s an evening meal, not a whole day or lunch request).

But given that the alternative is the nephew (or possibly their parents) paying through the nose for uni digs where they may have to share with countless other students, it’s a ridiculously low ask for what is essentially a 2 bedroom property all to himself with bills included and a free Sunday dinner, no less.

If he can’t make it on a Sunday due to other commitments, then he could communicate that with his big boy words.

If he doesn’t want to spent what is likely 2-3 hours with a relative (no matter how close the relationship), in exchange for saving £10K a year, then he needs to open his wallet or get the hell out.

But it seems like he doesn’t want to do either of these things. He’s in no hurry to secure alternative accommodation, so it seems like he’s a bloody chancer who’s hoping that OP will cave and let him stay. Because FAMILYYYYY!

The comparisons to Emily Gilmore are making me laugh. Granted, I’m only 6 episodes into Season 1. But Emily, while a little rude and snobby, is right to enforce the rule- Lorelai, like the OP’s nephew, doesn’t want to spend time with her, but apparently has no problem spending her money. Why should Emily pay out thousands for the benefit of a relative who won’t give her the time of day? Why should OP?

Stand your ground, OP. And let your entitled nephew try and find such a deal elsewhere for his next uni year- he’ll learn pretty damn quickly how generous you are being!

Modern day Titus Salt!
It’s a weird rule, when they finish uni do you make them all work in your mill?

He should want to surely?
Free accommodation worth 10k !!!

He should think the world of you and be happy to spend time with you.

If he’s not going to do this tiny thing to show appreciation then out he goes to try his luck in the real rental market.

It’s not a weird thing at all. It’s a family get together - a nice thing surely?

He needs to count his blessings, rein in his entitled attitude and start realising how lucky he is.

I’d offer his place to a student who is struggling and comes from poverty - someone who deserves a break and isn’t a spoilt little git.

There’s something very primal about an obligatory feast in the big hall for distribution of surplus to the lower status members of your tribe. Absolutely about power and dominance and obligation. But you didn’t even fight or hunt for your surplus, although I guess mating into power has always been an option too.

There is something very strange and controlling about this situation. It makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
I do suspect lots of people saying it's fine would have a different view if this was an uncle insisting his niece attend weekly dinner or alternatively pay market rent.

Op you can clearly afford to let him have the property rent free. That doesn't mean you should unless you want to. When I do things for people I care about it doesn't come with conditions - for example buying someone dinner or treating them to something. Can I afford to, do I want to. Yes it's on a smaller scale but the same principle applies, I would not put condition on by making them jump through some sort of hoop. I've lent my sister a chunk (for me) of money - no condition attached, pay it back when you can as I know she will not take advantage.

It is clear most people could not afford to turn down the offer of free accommodation saving them or their parents £10k so of course they go along with it even if they don't really want to. You want them to dance to your tune - you have the power and control and are flexing that.

Yes he knew the terms so should come to lunch. I do not understand why you would have or want this 'agreement' in the first place other than, as I've said above, to make someone dance to your tune because of your wealth

You talk about family but having this agreement in place is more likely to damage the relationship than strengthen it. I'm not surprised he is pushing back.

Surely you could just let him live there for free but invite him over as and when to spend time together, for no other reason than presumably you care about him and like to see him. Hey DN fancy coming round for lunch on Sunday or we're having a BBQ fancy coming. You know the way normal people socialise with their relatives. Rather than obligation visiting.

This is absolutely batshit crazy!
I get that the one stipulation for free rent is to attend Sunday lunch and you’re entitled to state that but what a bloody weird condition!!!
Surely, the more free loaders that attend the lunch, will make it even more expensive for you?
I get it if you were offering accommodation for a reduced rent etc but it just sounds utterly controlling to expect everyone to give up every Sunday to attend and pretend to be a big happy family just to live rent free. Totally weird.
Just charge people a nominal rent, or knock the whole thing on the head completely and stop being so controlling!

Actually it's a great lesson. Families that maintain generational wealth understand that to be part of that carries obligations to the family as well. They want to make sure the beneficiaries see themselves as part of a wider group so when the time comes that those people gain control of that family wealth they make decisions to benefit the family not just themselves.

As I read it, the deal is "If you want to benefit from family wealth, you need to meet the one family obligation we consider unnegotiable".

And I suspect this tradition exists not so much because OP and her DH want company so much they will bribe snd blackmail to get it but because whether the family member benefitting from the deal enjoys it or not, it is to their long term benefit because it strengthens their connections and visibility to their family.

Also, it sounds as if DH has inherited this campsite from his family, so does he want people at the table that don’t really want to be there?

I think it’s weird and controlling. I wouldn’t have signed up for it as a student and I wouldn’t sign up for it now as a 47 year old. You don’t know me from a slice of bread so you can think what you like, but I find it really odd that anyone would make this kind of agreement. On either side. I certainly wouldn’t. Doesn’t matter to me if you believe me or not. I know what I would do and wouldn’t do and signing away my leisure time every single Sunday is not something I would ever do and I think anyone that would is fairly daft.

But why should OP be out of pocket for a nephew who cann't even be bothered visiting?

I also think this is weird.

A straightforward routine obligation like mowing the lawns etc is fine, but I think this crosses the line because it smacks of trying to buy a relationship and impinges on his independence each week.

I might feel differently if this were once a month because that’s fairly light touch - whereas a standing expectation every Sunday is fairly disruptive to a weekend, which is his personal time outside of classes. I would imagine most university students don’t even see their parents on a weekly basis let alone an aunt!

However I think he is also being unreasonable - he should be having a conversation with you about this and suggesting alternatives, not ignoring you.

I think it’s quite a sweet rule really. I assume there’s some flexibility with actual work or commitments. It’s a nice way of forging individual relationships with wider family, and not feeling like people are taking the piss.

YANBU

I am a mother of a child at Uni and if we had the chance for free accommodation in return for this, I would personally drive to the caravan, march her to the dinner and sit outside while she ate it, if I had to (which I wouldn't, as she's a normal kid who would be grateful for the accommodation and would enjoy seeing her relatives). Paying rent is killing us.

This is so controlling it’s unbelievable!
“come and stay for free in one of my lovely caravans, but spend one afternoon a week eating at my table or else…”

Genuine question - if a friend gave you use of a free holiday home for a week and just asked that you had lunch with them while you were there, would you really feel your friend was controlling and unreasonable?

The closer analogy would be a friend gave you free use of their second home but insisted that you had Sunday dinner with them every week, along with 15 other people (that might be a lot older/younger than you and who you have nothing in common with). Every Sunday.

No lazy Sundays because you’re hungover, no going away with your mates for the weekend, no Sunday evening down the pub with your mates, no chilling quietly after a busy weekend socialising to get ready for the week ahead - all of which an 18 yr old would probably want to do.

Its the insistence of a Sunday roast every Sunday - it’s the rigid prescriptiveness of it. No escape. This is what your Sundays look like from now and until you move out.

As a 50 ye old not blessed with an abundance of cash, I’d probably take the offer but feel weird about it inside. An 18 yr old - as PP have said - is still developing their brain wiring so it’s not surprising that he’s just swerving the weird meal and hoping that he can carry on living for free.

It’s funny though isn’t it? If OP had said she asked him to wash her car once a week or now her lawn, I think we’d all say that she was being entirely reasonable. I think it’s the unnecessary rigidness with no discernible benefit to anyone that makes it feel like nothing more than a power play. I think that’s what people are reacting to.

OP is insisting on this just because she can, not because it brings anyone joy or usefulness. That’s always going to feel off.

Omg, the stupid little ungrateful so and so.. Can't even be bothered to show his face and break bread with the people housing him. Kick him out now!! (not sarcasm)

I mean it's an extraordinarily odd way of doing things. Why are you desperate for these people to eat dinner with you?

I mean I'd eat dinner with you in exchange for a completely free self contained house. I think.

But I honestly think you should just scrap this odd set up and either charge properly or don't. But the dinner clause seems bizarre.

I think what makes this so weird is that lodgings in exchange for money is fine, or for labour is fine, or practical help. But basically what youre doing is asking for a bit of his soul in return. Its like giving someone a roof over the head in exchange for sex

I can understand that he doesn't relish having to sit and eat every sunday with loads of people and at his age wants free time at w/ends

But it was your only rule / expectation which they knew and understood.

I think they are all very much taking you for granted and will continue as long as you allow it. They probarly thought you would cave in as he is family.

Give notice stick to it and let them find and PAY for a rental for him and he could get a job to help them pay for it.

Bet they wont want to pay out of their own money.

That’s just one week though. 52 weeks of the year? No thanks. I hate the thought of a rigid Sunday dinner routine every week because that’s what I grew up with. As a consequence we rarely have a roast on a Sunday.

Personally I think the whole thing is bizarre and OP should just charge a set rate no matter who is staying there.

OP I honestly think I'd have bitten your hand off if I had accomodation and bills sorted at uni and the only proviso is that you feed me a lovely meal once a week that I provide pudding and washing up services for!!!

I also imagine that you'd be perfectly reasonable and if he wanted to go away with pals for a weekend or he had an alternate actual event on the Sunday yous have no issues with the occasional missed dinner with notice?

I think people these days get so overly entitled, they are happy to sign sign up to a scheme that benefits them but at the time the "payment" is required then suddenly it's unreasonable.

It doesn't matter if everyone you know thinks your payment system is odd, he knew the terms when he signed up for free rent and utilities. He went in to the agreement knowing what his side of the bargain was to be, and he's not fulfilling that, HE is being the unreasonable one .

Oh give over!!! FFS!