AIBU to not let in laws use my villa for free in peak season?

[dilwithvil]

I have a villa in Europe by the beach that I own independently of my husband. It’s effectively a high-end Airbnb in a very popular area and is usually fully booked from mid May until late September. It’s one of my income streams (I’m a SAHM but I manage several investments/assets, and this is part of my income). My husband also earns a very good salary, for full context, but all of “my spending” (coffee with a friend, make up, clothes, dentist) is paid by me from this income. I earn more than my husband.

My in-laws would like to use the villa for a week in peak season for free. My view is that peak season is when the villa earns money. If I block out a week for them, I’m not just “sharing a holiday home”, I’m giving up a week’s rental income.

I’ve said they’re very welcome to use it either in low season, when bookings are much quieter, or at very short notice if a peak-season booking unexpectedly cancels (which almost never happens).

They’re unhappy with this because they want to be able to plan a holiday well in advance, and they don’t want to go in low season because the weather is less reliable. Even if they paid half the market rate this is more than they would usually pay for a holiday, so they don’t want to pay that either.

For context, my parents do occasionally use the villa in peak season. The villa ultimately came from my side of the family (family money/early inheritance), so I don’t really see that as the same thing. Without them, there wouldn’t be a villa in the first place.

Also, while I get on reasonably well with my in-laws, I wouldn’t choose to holiday with them for a week or two, so inviting them while we’re there isn’t really something I want to do either.

AIBU for saying that if they want to use it in peak season, they should either pay the market rate (or even half), or go in low season? Or should family simply be allowed to use it for free regardless of the income I’d be giving up?

What I don’t understand about the allow bit about being SAHM, is that OP says he said they wouldn’t be able to sustain their lifestyle without the OP’s income, but she then says he pays all the bills.

Not unreasonable no, makes perfect sense but fairly cold and selfish. Can you gift them a holiday for a big birthday. One of the nice things about being wealthy is treating friends and family. You are losing out of a thousand but presumably actual cost is lower. They do say the rich stay rich by being mean.

They live in her property. He has no mortgage or rent.

Your family have paid in advance for their weeks. I see it as a string to having the villa at all.
I can’t imagine being retired and wanting to be in any tourist area at peak season.
And absolutely don’t think you should give it for free.

He doesn't pay for a mortgage, childcare or any of her costs e.g clothes

A few thousand.

But there would normally be no childcare costs if she was a SAHM, don’t know many households with a SAHP and a nanny. So that can’t be figured in his calculations of not being able to sustain lifestyle. I assume OP spends quite a bit on clothes if she out earns him and that is what her money is used for

Whether the property is a marital asset or not depends on how it’s been gifted to OP. She’s already indicated that if anything happens to her, the villa goes back to her family, so it would appear that’s already been covered. Let’s assume you’re right and the villa is a marital asset if they split. Has DH contributed to the costs of running the business and the maintenance of the property ? Because if not, he’s got a bit of a cheek expecting to be handed half of a business OP grew. If he is contributing then why isn’t he stumping up half of the cost of letting his parents use it ?

For the love of God she is not a SAHM.

She's a mum who works from home. She manages the villa booking and investments.

I assume she had some super-duper high powered job before because she owns the marital home, her wealthy parents have given her a villa (or some of it) and she has enough investments to occupy her as a job.

OP may be a SAHM but she’s also a business woman. Presumably that’s why she needs a nanny. Which she pays for.

what does my DH pay for / how do our finances work?
my “contribution” is being a SAHM. I look after our 3 kids (1 school age, 2 at home with me) full time and any admin related to investment properties or other assets happens during nap times / after bedtime or quick phone calls during the day. I also employ (and pay from my income) a nanny-housekeeper 2x per week who can look after the children if I need to get something done in the daytime. I always wanted to be a SAHM and I know for a fact without my own income my DH wouldn’t let me, because he feels like the level of income he is on wouldn’t be enough to sustain our family of 5.

I wish OP would come back and say she is not a SAHM!

She works from home.
So much so that she has to employ a nanny 2 days a week.

She has 'investment properties' (notice plural for properties.)
She earns more than her H.

Absolutely this. Posters are determined to see her as a ‘mean’ girl and are not factoring in that this is a business she grew. They’re also assuming that DH pays all the other bills without factoring in that OP has provided the family home.

my “contribution” is being a SAHM. I look after our 3 kids (1 school age, 2 at home with me) full time and any admin related to investment properties or other assets happens during nap times / after bedtime or quick phone calls during the day. I also employ (and pay from my income) a nanny-housekeeper 2x per week who can look after the children if I need to get something done in the daytime.

why are you quoting in bold what I've already posted above?

Why should she gift them? Just because she has a villa doesn’t make her cold and selfish for not allowing them to have it during peak season.

Some are acting as if OP has said no, full stop when she has said they are allowed during xyz times.

She has set boundaries on her property, the property that is part of her income which she is perfectly allowed to do.

I highly doubt her DH would do the same for her parents nor is he offering to do anything himself from the read of things with his own income for his parents.

She wouldn't be a sahm if she didn't have her own income though so he would be paying at least half the childcare costs for three children. If she was a sahm with no income then he would be paying for her expenses (clothes socialising etc) plus a mortgage.

of course she can

In LOW season. Which normal people would be grateful for, entitled CF less so 😂

You can guarantee with entitled people like this that they will carry on wanting more time and MORE free holidays at the villa
if you allow them to a freebie now. Just be blunt and say if you want to book in August - if there is any vacancies anyway - that the cost is £ x and that’s the full cost for the holiday and they can either book it through the usual route and pay for it all or go elsewhere. DONT keep having conversations about it!!! Stop offering them a discount as they won’t thank you!! They will feel entitled to your villa and also start inviting their friends to stay with them too’ then there’s the other relatives on your husbands side who will then say oh well if you allowed the in-laws a free holiday then us as your sister in law/cousin etc need a holiday too and we shouldn’t have to pay as your relatives either!

@walrushurricane what mortgage? I don’t think there is a mortgage

There isn’t a mortgage. OP provided the marital home.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to tag you. Apologies.

I think it’s a weird attitude. I have a place and let dp’s family and friends use it whenever they like. My only condition is they book it far enough in advance. If it’s already booked up in high season they can’t have it but if they tell me early enough they can. Why would you have one rule for your family and a different one for his especially as you’re married? I’m not even married and I would treat dp’s family like this.

Yes, i mean there would be a mortgage if she didn't have her own income and assets

@walrushurricane I don’t think the income has any impact though, so whether she had her own income stream or not there would still be no mortgage payments

Read it again. She provided the marital home they live in. She pays for the children and for child care. There is no mortgage. DH wouldn’t ‘allow’ OP to be a SAHM in the house she actually owns without an income stream, which she has. And she’s clarified that much of the profit goes into savings and investments which are her childrens’ inheritance. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.