Let them pay and hold the judgement

Casadena

My brother-in-law is getting married. My husband told me we might have to pay to cover his two high school-age brothers (i.e. their share of the AirBnB, dinner, etc.). I said his brothers should pay their share, one is 18. Eight weeks before the wedding, he explained that we expect them to pay their share or at least try to contribute and we’d cover the rest. We talked through options like getting odd jobs. They did nothing. They are on summer break, have never worked, and just play video games at home. Now, after the party, they say they’re broke and we have to pay. Father-in-law called and told us he doesn’t allow them to work, it’s not fair to financially burden them like this, don’t talk to them about it again, you can pay it or we (the parents) can pay it

banana468

WHAT?!? 

"We're happy to help cover the cost of this expense however this is not what we budgeted for and we either need you or the brother's to work off this increased expense or the money is going to come out of other areas of our budget.  I'll assume that if you don't mention anything to us then this means our help is Christmas and birthday gifts through 2026." 

Casadena

The in-laws offered to pay for their high school sons - idk why the LW is on her high horse about them not working or whatever. Just let your IL's pay you and it's over. No need for the high horse, imo. 

banana468

Casadena said:

The in-laws offered to pay for their high school sons - idk why the LW is on her high horse about them not working or whatever. Just let your IL's pay you and it's over. No need for the high horse, imo. 

Sounds right.  But I do think that FIL is an AH here.  All of this should have been agreed up on in advance.  So my stance softens slightly but I absolutely hate the concept of agreeing on things after the fact.  There should have been a plan in place on who paid what and if this was a gift or if there would be reimbursement financially or through some kind of work barter. 

Casadena

banana468 said:

Casadena said:

The in-laws offered to pay for their high school sons - idk why the LW is on her high horse about them not working or whatever. Just let your IL's pay you and it's over. No need for the high horse, imo. 

Sounds right.  But I do think that FIL is an AH here.  All of this should have been agreed up on in advance.  So my stance softens slightly but I absolutely hate the concept of agreeing on things after the fact.  There should have been a plan in place on who paid what and if this was a gift or if there would be reimbursement financially or through some kind of work barter. 

banana468 said:

Casadena said:

The in-laws offered to pay for their high school sons - idk why the LW is on her high horse about them not working or whatever. Just let your IL's pay you and it's over. No need for the high horse, imo. 

Sounds right.  But I do think that FIL is an AH here.  All of this should have been agreed up on in advance.  So my stance softens slightly but I absolutely hate the concept of agreeing on things after the fact.  There should have been a plan in place on who paid what and if this was a gift or if there would be reimbursement financially or through some kind of work barter. 

Agree for sure. I also read this though like the brother (LW's H) was just assuming that he and LW would pay and was maybe ok with it and then LW laid down the law as a "principle". I could be reading into it to much but it didn't sounds like they even included the parents/IL's in discussions and this reaks of a spouse-IL overstepping. It's obviously totally fine to say "We can only pay X amount" or "We can only pay our portion". If it's really just about the money, accept it and move on. Feels like LW is on a tear about responsibility and super judging the younger brothers and their parents for not working or whatever. 

LW is making a mountain out of a molehill that's not even hers. 

downtondiva

Why were LW and husband ever expected to pay if the parents were able to do so? I'm confused by that.

Nothing wrong with having a job in high school (I did), but that's not the LW's decision to make. If the parents don't want their sons working and are willing to pay for whatever, LW needs to back off.

banana468

I guess I think the LW Is rightfully frustrated because all of this is coming after the fact and it is payment that came from joint finances that can be reimbursed.

But if the FIL is going to pay for the kids then it solves the problem.

That said, they had to continue to ask for the $ and I don't get it.  

Saying this as someone who watched $ for a funeral go VERY poorly when people were invoiced without their consent.  

short+sassy

I feel like we are missing some background.  Like why the older brother was even approached in the first place to pay for his younger brothers.

I supposed I could understand if the parents don't have much money to cover them.  But apparently they do.  Therefore, it was always their responsibility.

flantastic

Casadena said:

My brother-in-law is getting married. My husband told me we might have to pay to cover his two high school-age brothers (i.e. their share of the AirBnB, dinner, etc.). I said his brothers should pay their share, one is 18. Eight weeks before the wedding, he explained that we expect them to pay their share or at least try to contribute and we’d cover the rest. We talked through options like getting odd jobs. They did nothing. They are on summer break, have never worked, and just play video games at home. Now, after the party, they say they’re broke and we have to pay. Father-in-law called and told us he doesn’t allow them to work, it’s not fair to financially burden them like this, don’t talk to them about it again, you can pay it or we (the parents) can pay it

This is the part that needs expanding. Why did your husband say this? Why did he think this? In what way were any of you involved in this to begin with? Did he assume a bunch of shit or did the younger brothers or FIL say anything to him in advance?

ILoveBeachMusic

As the parents I would expect to pay for the younger sons expenses especially since they are high schoolers. When DD got married, DS2 was and senior in college. He had small job on campus but not enough to pay for a hotel in Chicago and food. We paid for his room and food. I don't understand why LW and H were even involved.

mrsconn23

I'd never expect the kiddo to pay the way for DefConn in a situation like this. If we got hotel rooms or something, we'd likely pay for both rooms.   We made the kiddo pay for his plane ticket, 1/4 of the rental car, and a tank of gas when we went out west.  We covered food and our family's portion the Airbnb.

So it's odd that LW's H thought they'd have to cover the expense without reimbursement.  It's also weird that they went to the brothers for the money if they're still in HS and haven't had jobs to this point.  LW should have told their H to go to his parents from the jump and be all, "they can stay at our AirBnb, but since we have to get a bigger one so they have their own room(s), how is the cost going to be covered?" 

There's a huge swath of family dynamics missing here.  But LW and their H should have settled ALL of this prior to the wedding. At this point, take FIL's money and drop it.  However, take this as a lesson on how to deal with these things in the future. 

MyNameIsNot

I feel like LW is being deliberately unclear here. 

I cannot envision a situation where parents would expect teenagers to pay their own way to a family wedding outside of the parents not being able to afford it. Not even my tight ass dad would have done that.