Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Birthday bill split

1000 replies

KnickerlessFatWoman · 18/07/2026 12:55

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?

OP posts:
BlueRedCat · 19/07/2026 14:23

thislittlelife · 19/07/2026 14:10

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)

Edited

And that’s lovely and generous if you are the person with the smaller family and happy to always subsidise the bigger one. There is nothing wrong with that at all if you are comfortable with the extra cost. The OP in this case wasn’t which is ok too.

I think it’s weird myself if your sibling is happy to always have you subsidise for them every time you go out. It would make me feel like a freeloader personally.

OneSparklyGoat · 19/07/2026 14:28

Generous if you choose to cover others. Right if you expect them to cover for you.

ThisJollyLemonMoose · 19/07/2026 14:28

tiantian1005 · 19/07/2026 13:39

I mean this is mad. Its family. Over the years our sisters have done so much to help us, for example they came down to look after our daughter when we went to give birth to our second baby which would have cost nearly 1K to have a professional nanny over 4 days period of time, they never mentioned a penny. So if we go out for meal is it mad if I say OH NO we cant cover another 60???

With respect, I'm not sure how your sister saving you £1k in childcare fees has anything to do with OP's situation.

Clavinova · 19/07/2026 14:28

OneSparklyGoat · 19/07/2026 14:22

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?

He should feel guilty about expecting his single sister in law to cover part of his meal.

His single sister-in-law deprived him of a free meal in the first place. It was her idea.

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

Do you think the brother-in-law should have chauffeured anyone? The other adults were all drinking alcohol. Do the sister/brother-in-law live nearby or did they travel some distance?

Bellyblueboy · 19/07/2026 14:29

tiantian1005 · 19/07/2026 13:39

I mean this is mad. Its family. Over the years our sisters have done so much to help us, for example they came down to look after our daughter when we went to give birth to our second baby which would have cost nearly 1K to have a professional nanny over 4 days period of time, they never mentioned a penny. So if we go out for meal is it mad if I say OH NO we cant cover another 60???

Why is this relevant. You had chicken and your sister saved you a fortune with childcare? Because of that OP (who doesn’t have children) should subsidize her sisters family?

Speakeasier · 19/07/2026 14:32

Bellyblueboy · 19/07/2026 14:29

Why is this relevant. You had chicken and your sister saved you a fortune with childcare? Because of that OP (who doesn’t have children) should subsidize her sisters family?

I know. For all we know the OP could’ve provided a lot of free babysitting for the sister and the sister is just entitled.

Calliopespa · 19/07/2026 14:32

Bollihobs · 19/07/2026 14:13

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. 😂

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.

That is because many of the "you should have paid half brigade" aren't debating the maths.

burnoutbabe · 19/07/2026 14:33

Bollihobs · 19/07/2026 14:13

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. 😂

Your bit in bold clearly was not said out loud as that would have made everything very clear to both parties.

most of us think that there are 2 interpretations of “well treat our parents” to explain why sister thinks she was right.

i don’t think anyone of us are saying it’s the correct way to split it 100% but just that what sister thought was the plan.

Clavinova · 19/07/2026 14:35

Speakeasier · 19/07/2026 14:32

I know. For all we know the OP could’ve provided a lot of free babysitting for the sister and the sister is just entitled.

I hope she put her knickers on to babysit - she sounds like a bad influence; 'KnickerlessFatWoman'

OneSparklyGoat · 19/07/2026 14:36

Bellyblueboy · 19/07/2026 14:29

Why is this relevant. You had chicken and your sister saved you a fortune with childcare? Because of that OP (who doesn’t have children) should subsidize her sisters family?

Laughing at the autocorrect. “You had chicken” which I thought was related to a meal out.

Speakeasier · 19/07/2026 14:39

Clavinova · 19/07/2026 14:35

I hope she put her knickers on to babysit - she sounds like a bad influence; 'KnickerlessFatWoman'

Well that’s true and if she didn’t I’m sure the sister would tell on her to mummy.

MrsPapillon · 19/07/2026 14:39

tiantian1005 · 19/07/2026 13:39

I mean this is mad. Its family. Over the years our sisters have done so much to help us, for example they came down to look after our daughter when we went to give birth to our second baby which would have cost nearly 1K to have a professional nanny over 4 days period of time, they never mentioned a penny. So if we go out for meal is it mad if I say OH NO we cant cover another 60???

It’s mad to you in your situation. Maybe not mad to the person who always does the good deed. What if your family had never helped you and you were always the kind soul everyone asked for help? Would you still feel so inclined to be the giver then?

superspideysense · 19/07/2026 14:41

thislittlelife · 19/07/2026 14:10

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)

Edited

Wow. I don’t pay for the experience. I wouldn’t have enough money to subsidise a larger family. Good for you if you can do that but not a lot of families can. It also means the smaller family get a pretty good deal each time!!

januaryjanuarydone · 19/07/2026 14:44

burnoutbabe · 19/07/2026 14:33

Your bit in bold clearly was not said out loud as that would have made everything very clear to both parties.

most of us think that there are 2 interpretations of “well treat our parents” to explain why sister thinks she was right.

i don’t think anyone of us are saying it’s the correct way to split it 100% but just that what sister thought was the plan.

but there are loads of posters saying it should have been split 50:50. They’re all bonkers, but there are a lot of them!

NotAnotherChickenNugget · 19/07/2026 14:45

I completely understand this, my sister is single and I have a DH and 2 DCs. We’ve gone out for my mum’s bday before and “split” the bill, I wouldn’t dream of asking her to go 50/50. As you say, we pay for ourselves and one parent, and she pays for herself and one parent. We have 2 incomes, she has one. But I have a very strong sense of “fairness”!

superspideysense · 19/07/2026 14:45

SeaAndSangria · 19/07/2026 13:43

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.

But she did. Said treat the parents. Not the SIL family

ByUniqueViper · 19/07/2026 14:46

I think youre being pretty mean here. One meal was removed from the total bill but your post suggests that the food was pretty bad in general so I think everyone should benefit from this, not just you.
So as there were 7 of you in total you should have at least paid for 3 of you and then your sister pay for 4 people as she has the child.

But if im honest I'd have just split the bill cos how much did a 12 year old spend. Not that much I'd guess and hecis your nephew after all

januaryjanuarydone · 19/07/2026 14:49

ByUniqueViper · 19/07/2026 14:46

I think youre being pretty mean here. One meal was removed from the total bill but your post suggests that the food was pretty bad in general so I think everyone should benefit from this, not just you.
So as there were 7 of you in total you should have at least paid for 3 of you and then your sister pay for 4 people as she has the child.

But if im honest I'd have just split the bill cos how much did a 12 year old spend. Not that much I'd guess and hecis your nephew after all

You haven’t even started with the basic maths correct. There were 6 of them. So who should the OP pay for? Herself and both her parents? Or herself plus her brother in law and one parent?

Clavinova · 19/07/2026 14:51

ByUniqueViper · Today 14:46
One meal was removed from the total bill but your post suggests that the food was pretty bad in general so I think everyone should benefit from this, not just you.

I think that's a good point.

Wonderwoman98 · 19/07/2026 14:52

I’m with the OP here . If everyone had been intending on paying for themselves her bill would have been £35 and the sisters/ BIL/ nephews bill would have been £105. Somehow the sisters logic of treating their parents and splitting the bill still only has herself paying £105 and the Op also now paying £105.

I read it to my husband though and his response was it should have been 50/50 for the whole bill 🤣

Maybe there was a misunderstanding in the wording , however I think only a CF would misinterpret that treating mom and dad means splitting the entire cost of the meal .

superspideysense · 19/07/2026 14:52

KnickerlessFatWoman · 19/07/2026 09:06

Argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of it but treating people is a nice thing to do. Some people like to treat others, some people are mean.

It is indeed a nice thing to do - which is why WE were supposed to be doing it. Which bit don’t you get about that?

Wow. People on this thread are mad.

not all of us have loads of extra money to be “treating” extra people. They agreed to treat the parents. As there are two parents that’s one each.

why aren’t people getting this.

OP isn’t a mean unloving drunk. She just doesn’t want to pay for both parents when the agreement was only 1.

superspideysense · 19/07/2026 14:54

NotAnotherChickenNugget · 19/07/2026 14:45

I completely understand this, my sister is single and I have a DH and 2 DCs. We’ve gone out for my mum’s bday before and “split” the bill, I wouldn’t dream of asking her to go 50/50. As you say, we pay for ourselves and one parent, and she pays for herself and one parent. We have 2 incomes, she has one. But I have a very strong sense of “fairness”!

Thank goodness someone sensible. Also some kids particularly older ones eat more than some adults!!

AgedPudding · 19/07/2026 14:55

sorry disagree, the post said the mum and dad often treat the family (to the family meal) so they (the sisters) decided to treat them instead (to the family meal). That implies 50% each

I agree that makes sense. An 'event' which includes all the immediate family is usually paid for by mum and dad. This time the daughters decide that they will split 'the family event' therefore I would assume 50/50. It's not really to do with who had what. I understand the maths.

GingerBum · 19/07/2026 14:56

Yanbu

You offered to treat your parents, NOT split the bill.

You got your main meal refunded and paid 2/6 of the bill. £210/6= £35 each or £70.

Your sister is the one quibbling over the bill. Their share is 4/6, you each treat one parent.

If the bill was £210, they expected you to pay 50%. £110 is basically you treating both parents. I'm surprised they mentioned it to your parents (or at all)

SeaAndSangria · 19/07/2026 15:03

AgedPudding · 19/07/2026 14:55

sorry disagree, the post said the mum and dad often treat the family (to the family meal) so they (the sisters) decided to treat them instead (to the family meal). That implies 50% each

I agree that makes sense. An 'event' which includes all the immediate family is usually paid for by mum and dad. This time the daughters decide that they will split 'the family event' therefore I would assume 50/50. It's not really to do with who had what. I understand the maths.

Yes, exactly
It's just needlessly complicated things, and there's two interpretations depending on which way you take it! 😁
Neither's wrong, just should have been clarified better maybe

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread