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 the sister not say at the time "Splitting the bill in half is not fair, there's three of us and one of you"?
I mean, that's what I would have said if I was under the illusion my sibling was paying for my family.

So why did you say he'd been deprived of his free meal?

I'm not understanding your reasoning - I was defending the brother-in-law.

I assume SIL and BIL are married therefore have joint finances.

Either way, for some reason you seem to think that BIL is doing a great service by paying for his own family's meal...

I thought, according to Mumsnet law, all money is family money when you are married. Surely he and his wife have just paid for their family’s food, plus one of his wife parents (as agreed)?

Unless they have separate finances, I don’t see BIL was “lumbered” with anything.

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

The OP says 'my sister and I decided this time it was our turn and we were going to treat him and our mum instead.'

Both sis and bil should have had the sense to realise OP would be overpaying if the bill was split.

Why?

@clavinova why?

Why shouldn’t the sister and her husband pay for their own meal and THEIR child’s?!!!! The op got a refund on her meal and paid for her meal and one of her parents and thus being refunded most of her meal then she will have paid for half of the other parents and the tip??! So WHY are the idiots in the camp not understanding that a 1 person family wouldn’t pay for 3 PEOPLE???! She’s already paid for 1.5 parents on TOP of her own meal!! If anything she needs REFUNDING by her sister as she’s overpayed

@clavinova from your logic it reads like this.

Wife makes husband go out with her parents and her family.

Wife's sister (sister-in-law) should compensate sister's husband for wife making her husband go out with her family.

Or is your argument different?7

This is how it reads to me.

Bizarre!

His father-in-law usually pays for his mother-in-law's birthday celebration.

Poor man. He has to pay for his own meal. Awful.

If paying for his own meal is that much of an issue for him then either his own wife should pay for his or he shouldn't attend.

But thinking his wife's sister needs to subsidise it makes absolutely no sense.

When the bill came, BIL asked if we could split it over two cards, but they said they could only take one payment.

It's good that the restaurant couldn't accept two cards and that BIL paid.

BIL/SIL would have likely asked the staff split it 50/50 and OP may have just accepted it.

Also if OP had paid the bill, SIL/BIL would only have transferred £105 to her.

Now OP knows that for next time she needs to be explicit with CFs and tell them exactly what she's paying for.

This.

You are very obviously not in the wrong here OP! So your sister gets her meal, her husband’s meal and her child’s meal paid for by your (and her) father most of the time. This time- you and her decide it would be nice to treat your parents. In her mind this means on this generous occasion that she will…wait for it- actually pay for her meal, her husbands meal and her son’s meal! And you get to pay for your meal, your mum’s meal, and your Dad’s meal. What a treat she’s given them! How anyone can think this is normal is beyond me!

Why should OP pay for BIL and DN? She was right to pay £70

But no adult should expect other people to subsidise their meals indefinitely.

Other posters have suggested that it's unfair on OP's sister if OP doesn't subsidise BIL and their son. Which is also suggesting that BIL can't (or shouldn't be expected to) pay his own way. This puzzles me. By the way, I've seen no evidence that the BIL actually thinks this way, it's just what some MNers seem to think.

The "single tax" is real, sadly.

No, it's more: brother-in-law invited to mother-in-law's birthday celebration, his wife then tells him he is in fact paying half of the restaurant bill for all, then it turns out that his wife misunderstood the arrangement and he is paying more than half of the total bill. To top it all, the food was poor, his sister-in-law complained during the meal, he didn't drink any alcohol and he probably drove as well (we don't know how far - it could be a 100 mile round trip from his home).

As an aside - who hosts Christmas?

So he should be compensated by his sister in law for his feelings then, according to you.

And they as a family should just pay for their bill and not contribute to half of the birthday treat despite being treated by parents in law multiple times.

Sister in law should pay whole bill for parents. They pay nothing.

Is this right?

@Clavinova you're assuming husband and wife with 12yo child have separate finances (unlikely).

And the relevance of this is? Whatabouttery of the highest order.

But his family are responsible for half the bill! Why would paying this be some kind of imposition?