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?

If you're splitting per person you d have to take into acct that BIL and nephew weren't drinking... Which would usually approximately halve their cost

I know I’m quoting my own post here …. but why don’t people get that OP shouldn’t be paying anything towards the sister/BIL/nephew bill.???? Crazy!

I don’t agree with your analogy. It’s more like sister and bil threw in another couple of paintings in the basket for themselves and OP has to cover half that cost too.

I know it’s nuts.

I’d have just paid half and viewed as a treat for the kids

Your payment looks fair to me. Although where did you eat that was £35 per person with tips and drinks?

The level of misreading, even by MN standards, is insane 🤦🏻‍♀️

OP used £35 as an example, to make the Maths work evenly. It wasn’t necessarily the cost of each person’s meal.

I do t think you have understood the maths!

OP, you aren’t unreasonable. The most generous interpretation is that DSis hasn’t thought this through enough & realised that splitting 50:50 means she & her family are benefitting from you!

It might have helped to calculate mum & dad’s meal costs at the time & explicitly say, I’ll send you x (your share plus 1/2 of parent’s)

‘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’

Ok so their two meals were £70. Add on yours )I note what you said about the meal
being taken off but you had alcohol and dessert etc so you’ve kept yours as that anyway)
So you owe your brother £35 for your meal and £35 for your split of your mum and dads so £70 total.

So yes you’ve paid the right amount

Maybe sister sees it as dad normally pays for everyone so the entire £210 bill would have been parents share rather than £70.

BIL was the one that said split between 2 cards at the table. It was then that OP should have have specifically said she would transfer £70, not just her share.

Such a massive misunderstanding. OP, I think you are in the right but the lack of communication between you and sister hasn't helped the situation at all.

Your DS is a CF.

We can conclude 2 things...your sister is taking the piss...and people in this comment thread cannot read 😂

yew I agree with this.

if usually everyone paid themselves-so 3 groups paying then the split op thought was happening was fine. But usually no one bar parents pay so this was the 2 daughters taking over that expense. Yes all benefited as got a meal but who knows if this is a meal bil and nephew wanted or just attended to be polite.

(also weird birthday gift for mum by taking over your dads normal payment!) hopefully you got her something else for herself?

and I am understanding the maths both ways but the fact dad always pays throws things up in the air abit.

Hasn't OP actually now paid for both parents if her food was taken of the bill due to issues? Or she could have paid for her drink plus one parent's cost? Sis doesn't accept having a kid means paying for her kid.

It's nothing like the painting scenario. If the sisters bought the parents a painting, it is only the parents who benefit from it. OP's sister, BIL and nephew all got the benefit of a meal in a restaurant.

That's if you see the food itself as the treat, rather than the occasion and time spent together

But £210 can’t be what he pays everytime he covers the bill. It might £125 one day or £500 another day. Anyone with any logic can see the sister is being unreasonable. I can’t imagine expecting my sibling, who turned up solo, to also cover extra costs for my own family.

kid singular.

The sister’s one kid. Why does the OP need to be treating them as well as everyone else?

It sounds more like the sister wanted her family taken out at her single sister’s expense!

I wouldn’t expect my single sibling to subsidise my own family. It’s akin to the single person supplement on holiday. A penalty for going there solo.

Maybe the BIL and nephew wouldn't have wanted to eat there? It wasn't their choice to, they're doing it because.of the parents of the two sisters and family expectations and social norms. My dad likes different food to me, when it's his birthday we take him somewhere he likes, it's fine, the food isn't really a treat to me as I'd much rather something different to eat, I love spicy food or sushi, he doesn't, but I'll take him for a carvery as that's what he likes and it's for him not me.

My brother has 2 children, we have none.

If we're all outfor lunch, so him, partner and children then myself and DH, and say we'll split the bill, I mean divide in 2.

So in your example we pay £105. We'd cover part of their bill too. Maybe it's a family thing.

Yes I totally agree that sister is being unreasonable but just suggesting that as dad normally pays for everyone it is not a huge leap to think sister believes her and OP should cover this expense of their dads regardless of who is at the meal.

Are you a double income family? I’m assuming OP is single and paying it out of a one person income household.

That’s thoughtless of the sister then. Logic should have told her it was three against one.