Birthday bill split

[KnickerlessFatWoman]

Last weekend was my mother’s birthday, so we - that’s me, my parents, sister and BIL and their 12 year-old son - went for Sunday lunch. Unfortunately the food wasn’t great, and they ended up taking my main off the bill.

My dad is someone who always wants to treat everyone, so my sister and I decided this time it was our turn and we were going to treat him and our mum instead. When the bill came, BIL asked if we could split it over two cards, but they said they could only take one payment. He paid and I said I’d transfer my share. For the sake of keeping the maths simple on this thread, let’s say the bill was £210, or £35 per head.

Both BIL and sister are crap at responding to messages, so it took me until midweek to get the bank details. I sent over £70 to cover me and one of my parents.

I heard nothing in response, but I was chatting to my mum earlier and she said “Oh, by the way, Katie said you got the money wrong - it was £210 and you only sent £70”. I said no, that was right - my meal and one other. She said, “Ohhh… I think she thought you were splitting it”. I laughed and said, “No, we said we’d treat you and Dad. I didn’t say I’d pay for three meals!”

I don’t really know why my sister couldn’t just have messaged me instead of talking to our mother about it, but that’s not really the issue. Surely she and BIL don’t expect me to pay half the bill? By treating our parents, I meant exactly that - not that I’d pay for them both while my sister just paid for her own family (which is what this amounts to). There are three of them and one of me. If I pay half the bill, sister and BIL have only covered themselves and their child - there’s no “treating” anyone at all.

AIBU for thinking £70 was my share and paying just that?

Maybe. However, I do think it is a bit underhand involving her mother and complaining about how much the op contributed. The meal out was a treat for the parents from both daughters. Considering the op paying half the bill would mean only the op covered the entirety of their parents share, as well as her own meal.

I wonder if the sister was wrangling for the mother to reimburse her for the amount she thought op would pony up for the BIL and nephew. As well as trying to make it look like the op didn’t treat the parents really, as the sister had to pay for herself, hubby and son.

I'd have assumed "split over two cards" would have meant splitting the bill in two.
Paying half each.
If you meant differently, it sounds like there should have been more clarification /communication on who's paying what.

I do think it is a bit underhand involving her mother and complaining about how much the op contributed.

I thought this. Whatever genuine misunderstanding there might have been about whether OP was just going to split the bill with her Dsis, once Op's payment came in, it cannot have been hard for the Dsis to work out what Op had thought.

It falls to the Dsis to suck up a misunderstanding re £35 for the sake of keeping it pleasant for the parents as much as it does to op.

I think the Dad has spent one year too many treating his girls tbh!

Not sure where people are getting “split the bill” when you clearly said dad treats everyone you agreed to treat mum and dad. Pretty clear to me

Does that not apply to the sister? Isn’t life too short to be petty about £60 that her own family spent? She is the one quibbling it, after all.

There’s no point in asking a question like this on Mumsnet. You get called tight and selfish if you try to pay just your fair share. You should have paid for everyone. And for all the other people in the restaurant.

I agree with your take on this OP. In fact, you paid too much because your meal was ‘free’ because it was crap. In the circumstances you were generous and technically you paid for both parents’ meals.

And yet, there is the sister making it a family issue as she went to her mother and complained that op didn’t pay extra, on top of one parent and herself. Making it an issue, and getting in there to sling a bit of pr which ignores that op had indeed covered one parent. Whilst the sister covered the other.

You’d think the sister would have gone to the op if she had an issue rather than spreading unfair accusations about the op to her mother.

Not necessarily. It literally just splits dividing it up. I would never ever assume if my part of the group was larger than another part of the group that they would subsidise my part. That is bonkers honestly. If someone said split the bill I without context I would automatically assume it was in proportion to your part of the group.

the same could be said for the sister- why didn’t she just cover the whole group on this occasion as a special treat?

I think it does also apply to the sister.

If the brother-in-law was invited out for a meal by the parents, and then told by his wife; 'Oh, by the way, you're paying half of the restaurant bill as we're treating my parents' I don't regard the brother-in-law as cheeky.

It was obviously the op's idea in the first place;

'I said WE should treat our parents'

While generally, I would agree that you only pay your share. Your parents usually pay for a whole meal and the gift was to do that for them. So 50:50 to me seems right.

However your sister complaining to your mother is pathetic.

I think the sister and her husband should be embarrassed for wanting OP to feed them as a gift to her Mum in her birthday.

And for even bringing it up. It’s £35 and they are the ones that enjoyed that portion of the meal.

Read the post correctly...

Yes, treat the parents. Not treat SIL’s family.

@KnickerlessFatWoman I'm with you. I would have told my sis at the time that I'll send you my part and I cover one of parents. If I had been wealthy I might just have split it. But the worst in all of this is your sister. If she had an objection (no matter how bizarre we think it is) why didn't she call YOU? How unelegant to drag your mum in to this who has nothing to do with it. So your sister lacks savoir vivre and is a CF and therefore just send her your calculations and tell her that you haven't counted your withdrawn main which makes it beneficial to her. And to please don't involve your poor mum in the future- you're supposed to be adults.

Yep. Sister is a stirrer and a cheapskate.
All that needs to be said to sis is that by her method, you pay £70 for parents' meal and she pays nothing.
By your method you both pay £35 each.
Which does she think is fairer? There is only one answer.

.

My response is going against the grain here but my vuew is that when you go out for a meal, you aren't literally paying for the food/drink that you have. You are paying for the experience of going out for a meal. Therefore, when I agree to split a bill with someone, it wouldn't occur to me to pick apart the cost in this way. My sister and I have differing family sizes and when we split we always go 50/50. Because we all have a lovely time together and THAT is what we are paying for. This all just seems a bit tight and pedantic.

(Edited for typos)

I agree with you, but I can also see how the misunderstanding happened if you weren’t clear with each other at the time.

I don’t think she’s necessarily wrong in how she understood the split to be, but at the point their mother raised it she should have played it down and said ah no worries, I’ll get that sorted. Instead of pointing out why she’s not in the wrong and adding to the drama.

You can't @KnickerlessFatWoman

It's very straightforward but for some reason most posters aren't seeing that. They've decided how it should have been and are cross that you won't agree with them. 🤔

So, once more - your Dad would normally have paid the whole £210 bill.

You and DSis say "No, we'll pay this time - we'll pay for ourselves and then between us we'll pay for you and Mum too." So DSis pays for her family's food plus one parent and you pay for your food plus one parent.

Thus you have each paid for one parent, like you said you would, plus what you, or for DSis what she and her family ate.

@KnickerlessFatWoman agreed the treat was to pay for their parents, not her sister as well!

That's as simple as I can make it but I'm guessing it still won't satisfy the "you should have paid half!!!" brigade. 😂

Why should the brother-in-law feel guilty though? Either way the brother-in-law has ended up paying at a minimum £100 for his mother-in-law's birthday meal when originally he thought his father-in-law was paying. Not to mention that the brother-in-law didn't drink any alcohol at the meal. Who was driving? Does everyone live locally?

If it was “treat the parents” I’d assume covering their part and splitting that. Splitting bills normally is a per person basis. Might also just lump the child’s meal in and divide by 3, with you covering 1 part, which judging my your sums is exactly what you did.

He should feel guilty about expecting his single sister in law to cover part of his meal. He’s a grown man with a child; he should expect that he and his wife need to pay their own way.

I assume he drove his own family. Did you think OP should have also chauffeured them?