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?

Why did your sister mention it to your mum and not just text you directly?? 😬 What a daft thing to do!

I kind of get how the misunderstanding happened. But if you and your sis split the bill 50-50, then you've treated your parents and your sister has just paid for her family. Your way of splitting it is better. 🤷‍♀️

I hope that OP can see that the majority of posters have common sense and logic and can see she is right - at least I hope that’s the majority - or common sense really has deteriorated over the generations. 😬

Why doesn’t sister let it go? Why does OP have to be the one?

I was thinking this, your meal wasn't charged so in effect you've paid for both parents

So op pays 105 and sis plus sis hubby plus sis child also pay 105? How is that right? I think op pays for herself, sis and sis hubby pay for themselves plus their child then each sis pays for half of the parents bill. So the parents don't pay and are "treated" to the meal. That op main course was comped is her reduction for having crap food. No one else should benefit from that, so it reduces her bill to eg her starter plus her dessert plus her drinks plus 50 % of whatever the parents food and drink amounted to. The sister needs to pay for everything else, surely?

If OP came on now and said it was a reverse I’m betting that many people would change their position. Some people just like to have a go at an OP.

OP, I understand what you’re saying and completely get the point you’re making. But your sister had a different take on the agreement. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with phoning her and explaining what you’ve told us.

I can see how the misunderstanding happened - both sisters were thinking differently about how they were treating their parents.

OP was thinking they were splitting the £70 bill that covers the parents and then paying for their own ‘side’s’ consumption.

Sister was looking at the treat as not having parents pay the £210 bill - so the treat was covering that bill between them.

Yes, so that way, parents get a treat and Sis/BIl both still get a treat as well! Why should they have to wholly forgo it?

I think you were reasonable in only wanting to pay for yourselves and split the cost of the parents' meals but it's clear there's been a misunderstanding and your sister thought you'd split the bill. I don't think that means you should pay more.

I'd just send a text to your sister: "Mum mentioned you don't think I've paid enough for the meal. We said we'd treat mum and dad so I've paid for my share and one of them. My main was taken off the bill so I've probably paid a bit more than my fair share. Hope that makes sense."

Yanbu the intention was to treat the parents, not the op to treat the parents & ds family.

I think a lot depends on if you are in the sort of family where things tend to work themselves out fairly over time.

In my family we tend to split things evenly no matter how many family members each ‘side’ has but also make sure to treat the single or smaller family groups more so that over time so that they are not always subsidizing everyone else.

OP hasn’t explained what the ‘norm’ would be if parents weren’t covering the whole bill.

It is already very simple - you offered to pay half of your parents meal, with your sister paying the other half.

And then everyone else pays for their own - treating your parents by covering their meals.

Expecting you and sister to split the whole bill 50/50 is not you and sis treating your parents, its YOU treating your parents and your sister and her family paying for themselves. Makes zero sense.

But this is MN and if the moon is in the right quarter and the wind blowing from the wrong direction, posters will decide an OP is 'being difficult' or 'mean' or 'over sensitive' or 'hard work' and just be utter dicks.

Your sister is the dick here, if she was confused she should have clarified with YOU, not with your DM.

Youd think if the sister truly thought they were splitting the entire bill, she’d have addressed it with OP.

The fact that she didn’t, and instead went to their mother, is odd. Why wouldn’t she go to OP? Because she knows full well that the agreement was clear?

I think you’re kind of missing the point to be be honest. The treat for your father’s birthday isn’t really a free meal for him which is probably neither here nor there to him.
The treat is surely that he gets to go for a meal with all his close family and spend that time with them and it doesn’t have to cost him anything.
The whole experience is the whole bill not just the cost of his meal. If you’re equally contributing to the treat, you’re paying half of the whole bill. If you had held a party for him surely you and your sister would pay half of the cost? Not quibbled over which side of the family got more value ie ate more , danced more etc
You sound pedantic and tight. I’m sure if your mother didn’t think you were in the wrong she wouldn’t have mentioned it to you.

I think you're kind of missing the point. It's not about who pays for the parents' meal is it? It's about how Op and her sister split the cost when there's one of her and three of her sister. Why is OP the tight one not the sister who expects her to pay more?

Except the treat was that the parents meals were paid for.

OP’s mother heard the sister’s side of the story, then questioned OP. Once she heard what OP had to say she called it a misunderstanding and hand waved it away. That isn’t ’taking the sister’s side’ or believing OP was in any way in the wrong .

The only person being tight is the sister, who apparently doesn’t think she should have to pay for her own family.

Anyone remember a thread a while back where a poster's co-worker tended to order a massive amount of food and drink and his lesser paid coworkers had to contribute towards his share as he always had the bill split evenly. The op was massively supported and cheered on as she stopped letting him get away with it, while he was considered a huge cf. OP's sister is the CF in this scenario.

Agree.
I wouldn't dream of pulling a stunt like this with my single brother when we take our parents out.

I have a husband and 3 children and people on here think that bill would be 50/50?

So many CF's on MN.

Your sister is wrong on two counts:
One, involving your mum and
Two, assuming you are going to
pay half the bill when 3 of them had eaten and yours was actually refunded.
They got a good deal and I can see
why you are annoyed about this.
She’s being awkward not you, £140 for three meals, drinks and half your parents meals was pretty good from their point of view.
YANBU

I meant to say that there's no way I would assume my sibling would pay half the total bill if we were treating my mum. It just wouldn't be fair at all.

I think you missed the point.

OP said she would treat her parents, they went half.

No idea why, the restaurant wouldn't/couldn't split the bill over two cards.

This doesn't mean the bill was supposed to be split 50.50 in favour of OPs sister.

Wowee that got outta hand quickly 😆
I would perhaps message your sister and say apologies for the mis understanding about the bill, when we agreed to take mum and dad for a treat I thought we were just splitting their bill and then paying for ourselves hence why I sent £70 .
Pretty clear how you came to the £70 then and she can then reply with her justification of why she thought you should send 110. She may then realise asking you to pay half was a tad unreasonable when there is only 1 of you .

Sorry, how old is your nephew?! If he’s a child and not drinking and not eating much , I wouldn’t even be counting him in the numbers… so then it becomes £210 over 5, so £42 each making yours £84 and there’s £126 which probably seems more reasonable…. Unless nephew is a fully grown adult I wouldn’t be counting him in, or would you expect him to use his Henry card and pay the £35 if everyone were saying there own share?

It is in the OP, first sentence, nephew is 12. So eats a normal amount, not teeny tiny toddler bits off someone else's plate.

Why should the OP subsidise her nephews meal though, she didn't offer to treat him, she offered to treat her parents. If the boys parents want to make him pay for his own food with his Henry card, thats their business.