Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

Another reason why Mark Zuckerberg should be taken out and shot. Facebook produces much more pain than any "lost lovers/friends/relatives" benefit it provides. Five years later, and the sister-in-law of LW1 is posting hurtful comments about her brother? Without consulting her siblings, that sister took it on herself to plan the gala, then had the temerity to strong-arm her siblings for cash. Something tells me that even if the brother makes an abject apology and offers an installment plan, Sister Bossy won't be mollified. She sounds like an officious busybody who has controlled the family for years. It's a shame her sibs don't stand up to her.

LW1: I've never had anyone plan a party in our family then inform me what I owed. I can't even imagine the balls of anyone doing that. I'll bet this sister was also a bride who informed all of her guests to contribute a specific $ amount to her honeymoon. Anyway, I wouldn't have put up with this crap from the beginning, I would have simply said if you wanted me to contribute to the party, then we would have had to discuss it BEFORE the final plans were made, PERIOD.

Maybe you should plan an 85th birthday party for the mother, and tell the sister you are now even because her share was $850. Then have it at a Denny's (I'm half kidding).

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 15 November 2012, and was also discussed on 2, 3 & 11 February 2013 and 14 April 2013.

I totally disagree with the Annies' advice to LW1. His sister should have asked him first, before she made all those plans and commitments and then expected him to contribute equally.

When my husband and his brother and sister sent their parents on a golf vacation, the guys didn't expect their sister to contribute as much as they did, because they knew that financially she just couldn't. Nobody tried to make her feel guilty or expect her to pay more later.

I'd lock the oldest sister out on FB, because what she's doing is only making herself look small and petty.

___________________________

Oh, before I forget: MEN. They're to blame for EVERYTHING.

LW1: I agree with Joannakathryn. The Annie's are wrong on this one. Your husbands sister (and possible other siblings) is a bully. If you give in to her demands and pay her the money, then it will be something else later. Did you or your husband tell her that you would be paying more money later? If you did, then you should make good on it. If not, hit reply to one of her emails and send back that you contributed what you could to the party and that you didn't agree to anymore. If she decides to throw a party in the future, she should consult you to see how much you and others can pay before plans are made. Because really... she planned a $7,000 without input from any of the people who were supposed to pay for it? Who does that?

Oh, and Facebook has some neat little features. You can unfriend and block your sister and anyone else who is throwing barbs your way. And if you don't want to actually unfriend them, you can hide your posts on their news feed.

LW1: "Hundreds of her mother's friends and neighbors"? Either you're exaggerating or your SIL has a ridiculously inflated sense of reality. No one has hundreds of friends, and if anyone ever did, half of them would be dead by the time she was 80. A guest list like that is more about your SIL's ego than your MIL's birthday, and the rest of the siblings shouldn't have to subsidize it unless they agreed in advance. I have five siblings, and none of us would dream of expecting the others to chip in for a gift or party without discussing it first. That's not the way adults treat one another. Unfortunately, your SIL has no sense of decency and probably will not let up until she gets her money. In fact, she will probably let your MIL know about it, if she hasn't already. If your husband feels obliged to pay it off, he should make it clear that he will not do so again.

Oh yes, I did forget. LW1s husband is to blame for everything because he's a man. $850 is a lot of money. That's like a weeks worth of twinkies for me!

Re: LW1 – An 80th birthday party is quite an accomplishment. Was your MIL excited about the lavishness of the occasion? Since all seven of her children are if not successful, then at least financially comfortable, she has much to be proud of. I am sure that a party of this magnitude took a lot of effort, discussions between the siblings and planning to invite “hundreds” of friends and neighbors. You don't mention anything about any discussions between the siblings, but honestly this is such a huge, elaborate event, I find it difficult to believe the eldest sister took on this task without any help.

I am glad for your MIL's sake the party went well, but I can't see how you or your husband could have had an enjoyable time. It would have been rude (or gauche) for anyone to mention that hubby and you were unable to contribute your fair share, but it would have been right to admit to Mom that the siblings should accept more accolades, since you were both unable to pay your portion of the bill. WHY do you ask?

There is much more to do than just pay for the occasion. How is it you don't mention contributing your time and effort. I haven't a clue whether the other siblings did more for the event, other than writing a cheque, but you mention it is not only the older sister who is a bit peeved with hubby's lack of effort.

I hope that the discord between siblings has not reached your MIL's ears (I'm sure that it would break her heart). Do you realize if you had made monthly payments of $17 in the last five years, you would have paid off your portion, and no more reason for the arguing. No problems, only solutions, right?

LW1 - Like Baldrz, I find it hard to believe that the LW's MIL had "hundreds" of friends and neighbors. However, even if she did, it was outrageous for the sister to plan an elaborate party and then inform the siblings that they each had to contribute $1,000 to it. If she was expecting equal contributions from the siblings, they should have had a part in the planning and be kept advised of the expenses being incurred as the plans progressed, NOT after the fact. Apparently, the LW's husband informed his sister before the party that all he could contribute would be $150. After doing so, he and the LW attended the party, had a good time, and thought everything was fine. Now, five years later, the sister is starting a campaign via e-mails and Facebook to berate him for not paying his "fair share". Maybe she's run into some financial problems and decided to bring this up now to browbeat her brother into paying another $850 to help her through it, or maybe she's just a nasty person.
.
Whatever her reasons, she is totally wrong to do what she's doing and the LW's husband should stand his ground and not pay a penny more. The sister is being unreasonable and way out of line by bringing his lack of ability to pay more to the attention of the rest of the family (and possibly their mother as well). I can't imagine the mother hasn't heard something about this by now, and it must make her feel terrible.
.
I honestly don't know how the LW's husband can make his sister stop her campaign to belittle him with the rest of his family, but he can certainly block her e-mails and unfriend her on Facebook. But of course, that won't stop her from blasting him even further with the other siblings. Probably the only way to get her to stop is to agree to pay the rest of the money, but personally I'd tell her to go to hell.
.
Having said all that, I'll have to mention that all this is the LW's husband's fault simply because he's a man and we all know they're to blame for EVERYTHING!

LW1: The problem is that your husband didn't complain more firmly before the party was thrown -- simple deciding unilaterally that everyone must contribute $1000 is ridiculous, especially if there are varying degrees of income-earning among the siblings. This seems to be, in part, a bullying tactic designed to exert control (as older siblings sometimes can do over the others).

I sort-of agree with the Annies, except since the sister has been complaining publicly via Facebook, I would be more inclined similarly, and forcefully -- that it was rude of her to bring this out in the open, that it was rude of her to plan a party that you couldn't afford in the first place, and that she should have actually gotten your approval first if she was expecting him to contribute such a large amount. Reminder her that not everyone in the family is as well off as others, and then close with saying that you will try to pay her off in installments as you can afford, but that if she continues to try to publicly shame you by airing your dirty laundry to the whole family, you'll stop, and consider the debt paid. (In essence, letting her know that if she wants the money, she'll keep her mouth shut from now on).

But this could temporarily increase family tensions, so your husband needs to be sure he can pull this off.

LW2: Like the Annies, I'm a little uncomfortable with such broad generalizations, but there may be men in a similar position who could learn from your example. The deeper lesson, I think, has more to do with improving communication with your significant other rather than any "men are from mars" gender stereotypes.

-----
Time to make the donuts, and thanks to Joannakathryn for the reminder -- because men really are to blame for EVERYTHING. (As a man, I should know!)

The first thing I thought (like others) is at 80 years old, she couldn't possibly have hudreds of friends and family but that's neither here nor theie. If there are 7 children and they were all expected to pay $1,000 each, this would have been a 7K birthday party. Sorry, but I don't care how wonderful someone is and how long they lived for but 7K is too much to spend on anyone's b-day. No way should someone make all of these lavish plans and then expect others to help pay for it.

LW2: I am thinking that your girlfriend, at some point, mentioned the importance of marriage. Women will tell you what they want, they just may not be pushy about it. My husband and myself did it all backwards - bought the house, had kids, then got married. He always wanted to plan a large wedding, but we lived far from any family. My only stipulation was that we must be married when our eldest started school. 5 days after she started Kindergarten, we were married at the courthouse. He was wise enough to remember me saying "if we are not married by then I will leave you". He knew me well enough to understand that I was very serious. That was 20 years ago. He doesn't often listen to me, but he does listen about the things that matter. And, he still makes me laugh, daily.

LW1 - Your SIL and the Annies are wrong. Your SIL had no right to go ahead and plan a party that she expected everyone to help pay for without consulting them first. Years ago, my mother, her sister and brother threw a 50th anniversary party for their parents. Nothing was booked without the consent from all 3 of them. I do not agree that your husband should have to set up a payment plan. She never asked him if he would go in on it so why should he have to pay? If I were him, I'd delete her off Facebook (and anyone who's making rude comments about it). If she wants her money so bad, she can take him to small claims court, which she'd lose.

LW2 - If she felt like the housekeeper with privileges, why'd she stay with you for so long?

LW1--"Is it right for one member of a family to plan an event without consulting the others and then expect them to pony up the money requested?" Of course not! Your husband's sister is clearly the most self-absorbed, self-entitled crap for brains I've encountered lately! Do not take the Annies ridiculous advice to setup an installment plan to pay for something your husband both did not know about nor have any say in whatsoever!! That your husband even dignified his sister's infinite rudeness by giving her $150.00 for a "ticket" to his own mother's birthday party indicates that he is a moron and lacks common sense. Frankly, that should be your bigger concern my dear; especially if you intend to breed with this man. For the immediate problem at hand, inform your husband of the absurdity of his sister's request and don't give that nitwit another red cent. If your sister-in-law takes to social media and starts spouting off vitriol about your husband to her minions of followers, ignore her. ANYONE with even an ounce of sense knows what your SIL did is beyond the pale and will take whatever she says with a grain of salt. As tempting as it must be to you to slap your idiot SIL into the middle of next week, take the high ground.

LW2--Congratulations. I look forward to your letter in a few years where you wonder how to deal with an emotionally distant wife who withholds intimacy to get her way and who tries to manipulate and control your every move.

Relationship faltering? Solution: get married. Seriously?

What's next? Can't find the kerosene in the storage shed? Here, use this lit candle.

Well, of COURSE the sister shouldn't have planned an event without consulting the sibs, if that's indeed an accurate representation of what happened. Who anywhere would say otherwise? That, and the fact that some of the sibs ARE siding with her, makes me wonder if that's what did happen, whether LW's sibs did indeed consult with her. Whether LW's husband maybe even ignored some phone messages or blew off a gathering and it turned into majority rule. And whether LW's husband actually said, "finances are tight for me,Sis, you know I can only pay $150 of that right now" -- which got interpreted as "I'll pay you back as I can."0 y

BTW, it's totally plausible that an 80 YO could have "hundreds of friends and neighbors" -- particularly when you count in the fact that family was included and she has 7 kids and is almost certainly a great-grandmother. Her kids, their partners and their kids, plus any partners/children of adult grandkids, along with any of Mom's surviving siblings, in-laws and nieces/nephews and THEIR partners, probably totaled 50 or more. But people's friends and neighbors need not be of their own generation! My aunt died at 85; her funeral was attended by, yes, HUNDREDS of people because of her civic work (she started the city's music conservatory, among other things) and the many who took piano lessons from her, and her work in her church. (And she didn't even live in a senior community, as my mom does, with literally 200 neighbors.)

Am I the only one that noticed that LW1's husband is paying RENT for their home and the MORTGAGE for a daughter?

Re: Laura

"Am I the only one that noticed that LW1's husband is paying RENT for their home and the MORTGAGE for a daughter?" I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. I guess he's more stupid than I thought.

LW1,

I feel your pain. My SIL did the exact same thing to our family when she planned our in-laws' 50th wedding anniversary party. She kept us in the dark about the whole thing, then billed us for "our share" a week or so after the party. We politely but firmly told her we didn't have the money and were surprised by the bill. This was more than ten years ago. I suppose I should be glad Facebook wasn't invented yet. I'm also glad the caterer couldn't provide the prime rib she had wanted on the menu and instead went with roast beef. It was cheaper.

LW1: While I realize there is always two sides to every story and, as a few of you are suggesting, the possibility that he blew off the siblings during the planning process so he was billed by default, I am taking this one at face value.

Five years seems to be a very long time to hold this grudge. I don't know what the statue of limitations are in the sister-in-law's state or the LW's, but I'd say that it's passed. Five years and all he's paid just $150 ... I think his sister should just let this one go. I mean, I highly doubt that she's gone broke over not having $850 (presumably, the rest of the balance she feels she's owed) to spend on trips to the botique; if she's successful, not having $850 over five years (works out to being out $170 each year) can EASILY be absorbed.

This indeed should have been worked out ahead of time, and payment plans made accordingly for those who can't afford $1,000. "OK, I can pay maybe $500, and it'd have to be in three installments of $167 each, but I can swing that much," for instance, which gets said during the planning process. Not just, "OK, here's the bill ... need the cash right away" after the sobering up and such are over with the morning after.

And maybe you scale things down a bit when not everyone can afford an elaborate party such as what was thrown – perhaps no band, no caviar, no black-tie affair for instance. (OK, I don't know if caviar was served even though there was an elaborate buffet, and I don't think this was a black-tie affair, but we do know there was a band which easily could have been excised.)

As for the Facebook comments – I'm also going to give the LW's husband the duke here and say he's not been engaging his sister online, that he's not been responding to her posts. What I would do here is give her an ultimatum: Knock off the posts pronto or else not only will you be unfriended and blocked, but you WILL be reported for posting abusive, inappropriate comments. And there will be other dire consequences, such as not getting one more milli-penny and possibly also being told to stay away, or else. There is no reason for these Facebook comments, right or wrong.

The more that I think about this letter, the more I have to wonder what the relationship is between the sister and the LW's husband ... sounds like she may be oppressively bossy, even by going by a couple of BTL posts. I HATE oppressively bossy.

My SIL did the same thing shortly after we were married... she ordered a very expensive mothers day gift "from the kids" - without any consultation. Then she sent my husband a bill for TWO fifths of the amount - saying that since he was married we were "considered" TWO "kids"

Re: Bobaloo
There wouldn't be a statute (not "statue") of limitations involved unless the sister had a written contract with the siblings, so that wouldn't enter into it, even though the brother paid her $150 on the bill. But even without that to worry about, paying it off in small increments would probably ease the family tension. However, that sets a precedent and the next time the sister (or another sibling) decides to "host" a lavish event, they'd expect the brother to ante up again. It would be a matter of principle with me to stand my ground, but the controlling factor would be whether or not the principle trumped family harmony. Only he can make that decision.
.
As usual, there are many ways we can interpret the letter and speculate on whether or not the brother did or did not have advance warning of the $1,000 expected payment, but like you I am taking the letter at face value since that's what was presented.

LW1 -- I'm with hedgehog on this one. Sure, if the SIL really planned the entire thing and never once discussed with the siblings if they would contribute to it, then she is totally in the wrong. The thing is, we're getting this story second hand, and from someone who may not have been privy to all of the conversations/communication related to this bash. Totally possible the SIL really never did talk with anyone about this, but the fact that apparently all the other siblings paid up and at least some of them are siding with their sister rather than their brother COULD be an indication that there's more to this story than we're getting.

And it is totally easy for me to believe that there was a cast of hundreds at this party. As hedgehog pointed out, with seven adult children (at least some of whom have children of their own), just family alone could have made up more than half the list. When the father of a friend of mine died a couple of years ago, hundreds of people showed up for the funeral. The man was born and raised here and then raised his own family here, as well. I live in one of those places where a LOT of people move here from somewhere else, so it's somewhat rare to meet a "native," and rarer still to meet a "native" whose family has been here for four or five generations. That was the case with this family. Moreover, he was very active and involved in the community "back in the day," so he was very well-known by anyone who has lived here for more than just a few years. Trust me, if they'd decided to throw a big bash for him while he was still alive, the guest list could easily have run into the hundreds if they had an unlimited budget.

But, even if we take the letter at face value and assume the SIL is totally in the wrong here, the brother has two choices: he can make an attempt to mend the rift, which will almost certainly include his offering to pay what he can as he can, or he can leave things as they are and accept that his relationship with a number of his siblings is probably basically over (which, in turn, causes a certain amount of tension and trouble for the whole rest of the family, as well, unfortunately, so he also has to be OK with that, too). So, yes, LW's husband is right and his sister is wrong. And that and a quarter won't even buy you a cup of coffee, much less resolve the situation.

Hubby (who, by the way, isn't seeking anyone's advice on this matter and may well already have washed his hands of this whole matter) needs to decide what is more important to him: being right, or making things right. If we have an accurate accounting of how all this went, he is right to stand his ground and not pay her any money. But that's not going to repair this family's broken relationships.

Let me add -- SIL is wrong to be using group e-mails and Facebook to try to shame him into paying up. But I can't help wondering...is this the only way she seems to be able to get him to respond to her? I don't think the LW is purposely being an "unreliable narrator" (even if we can generally expect a wife to take her husband's side), but we can't be sure that the wife is privy to other, more private attempts by the SIL to discuss this with LW's husband.

To recap: if we take the letter as a full, fair and accurate and account, then SIL is totally in the wrong. But if the goal is restore family ties and mend fences, then sticking to "but I'm RIGHT" isn't going to do a damn bit of good. He's tried that for five years, and it hasn't worked yet because it's not ever going to work. He needs to decide if it's more important to be right, or if it's more important to reconcile with his family. I'm not judging either choice -- but those are his choices, so he picks one and lives with it.

Another thought on LW1: I think it is telling that the LW's question isn't "how can we resolve this" but rather, "Is it right for one member of a family to plan an event without consulting the others and then expect them to pony up the money requested?" I can't help thinking this is yet another LW who knows that she's right and just wants to be told she's right, Right, RIGHT! Whether she then intends to use that as ammunition to convince hubby to stand his ground or to try to convince the SIL and other sibs to let this go, or whether she just has a desperate need to be told she's right, I don't know, but I admit I tend to lose patience with people who are more interested in being right than actually resolving a situation.

@kitty (22) -- you said, in far fewer words, what I was basically trying to say, so we are mostly on the same page. The only thing I would differ on is the concern about setting a precedent. You are right that it DOES set a precedent, but honestly, I'm thinking the odds of the SIL ever doing hosting such a lavish event again, with the plan of getting her sibs to chip in, are pretty slim. It could happen, of course, but I'm betting she isn't interested in having to wait five years (or more) to be paid up. Moreover, LW's husband can tell her, "look, I'm going to pay you what I can, as I can, but next time, please count me out."

LW1
I have to agree with @hedgehog and others - with 7 kids, grandkids, great grandkids, friends, neighbors, etc. the guest list probably was in the 100s.

Maybe the sister actually did orchestrate the whole thing and bill him after the fact resulting in him putting his foot down and refusing to pay more than $150. It seems likely, however, that he was not assertive enough at the time and did not state his case forcefully enough to the sister since she is now needling him for the rest of the cash.

I think LW's hubby should tell the sister that he will pay this bill (in installments if necessary) but if she ever pulls this type of stunt again he will not pay - period. He should make sure he states this publicly, via facebook and email, as well as verbally to the sister so that the whole family is in the loop and everyone knows what to expect in the event this happens again.

That said, his share of the bill for such a large party is not really out of line IMHO and he certainly could have paid this off over 5 years. Also, @jenna #8 is right - where was he in all the planning and prep? An event like this takes a lot of work and it doesn't sound like he contributed his time either.

LW2
What @Jpp said.

L3
Didn't the Annies post a letter with the exact same advice a few weeks ago?

LW1 - I am not sure how to feel about this letter. I have a really hard time believing the LW. It seems unlikely that one sibling would just randomly so all that without it coming up in any way that she was expecting to share the expense, and LW1 doesn't mention the other siblings so I can only assume they paid without complain.

Which all leaves me searching for an explanation because the LW's story doesn't make sense. Did the husband avoid the planning process that the other siblings were involved in? Was there a discussion at some point about splitting the cost that he either forgot about or "forgot" about? The husband is paying the rent, his daughter's mortgage, and child support - are these new expenses? At the time of the planning, could he have given the impression that he was able to contribute more? And now, five years later, are the LW and her husband spending money (new car, new house, etc) which is prompting the comments from the sister?

IF the story is as the LW tells it, and the sister did all this of her own volition without discussing it with the other siblings and certainly without an agreement to share the costs, then the husband has to rehearse a response to use and re-use. "I never agreed to pay anything at all, and $150 was the most I could afford. I really appreciate what you did for Mom, but if you had asked me ahead of time I would have told you there was no way I could have pitched in a thousand dollars. Sorry." and/or delete her from Facebook, ignore her calls, etc.

If there is anything else to it, though - if the husband avoided the planning process but everyone else was under the impression that the costs would be divvied up, or if he gave the impression at some point that he would chip in, then take the Annies' advice and start paying up. A way to do it without losing face would be to say "Sis, I'm sorry it's gotten rocky, but I'm in a good place financially now and I can start making payments toward Mom's birthday party. I could do $200/month."

LW2 - I'm glad it's working for you but I have no idea what the message here. I don't remember our vows nor do I ever think about them. Frankly, it sounds like your wife is never happy (before the engagement it was the lack of commitment, after the wedding it was something else) with your relationship and instead of verbalizing it when it firsts becomes an issue, she waits until it's infected. And you sound like a nice guy who prefers to act like women are some mystical creature that you just CAN'T understand, rather than actually processing your relationship.

If it works for you, then whatever, I'm happy for y'all. But that's now how I'd choose to resolve my problems. No sir.

Re: Lisa

I thought it was an awkward way to frame her issues with a question as well. However I think that sometimes these odd questions may be the product of poorly editing a letter that originally had no question in it. As you can probably tell from my last post I do question the LW's veracity so I am not arguing with you at all - just more of a general statement to keep in mind when a question at the end of a letter feels weird or tacked on.

For those wondering how the eldest sibling could really have been so controlling, I posit you may not all be familiar with the dynamics of a large family with many siblings. My fiance is the youngest of 8; the eldest often acts more like parent than sibling to the rest of the brood. So I can *easily* imagine that this was not a collaborative effort of the siblings, but rather they were all just told what to do by the eldest, and almost all of them fell in line because of long-standing family dynamics.

Not saying that this MUST be the case, and the arguments are good to suggest that maybe the LW *is* shading the story a bit; but on the flip side, I don't see it as all that unrealistic if the story really is as the LW is reporting, either.

Re: Lisa #25
I''m sure you're absolutely right about what would happen if she tried that a second time -- I always seem to look at everything from a legal standpoint. Can't help it - it's ingrained :)

First, where the <<heck>> can you throw a party for "hundreds" of people, including renting a hall, an "elaborate" buffet, a "live" band, and an <!!<open bar!!>> for only $7,000? Either you are greatly exaggerating the scale of this party, or Sister was already giving her Brother a deep discount on his share of the costs.
.
And while I agree no one should plan a party and expect others to share the costs without consulting them, I'd be curious to know just how far Bro (who is in his 40s at least, not some young guy getting his first job) did go to agreeing to throw Mom a party at all--was the request for money really the first he'd ever heard of this jointly hosted party, or did he actually agree to the concept of having a party for Mom, agreed to allow Sister to do all the work to plan it, but then balked and cried poor once he heard the cost? If he didn't agree with the costs, rather than agreeing to attend for only $150 on his Sister's dime, this grown, middle-aged man should have bowed out altogether or "consulted" with his sibs to plan an actual party they could all afford. I also don't agree Bro didn't have the money at the time--he simply had different things he wanted to spend his $1,000, like helping his adult daughter buy a house.
.
Certainly, he was making good money at the time, considering all the expenses he was covering, including both rent AND a mortgage, wedding expenses and possibly student loans for the LW. And five years later, surely this couple is now in an even BETTER financial position, with many of those expenses gone or reduced, and surely the LW now has a good job as well, what with that graduate degree and all. I'd be curious to know what the financial statuses of the siblings are now, and whether they might even now be reversed--with the LW and Brother being quite well off now and Sister having suffered during the economic downturn or now retired on a fixed income.
.
In any case, if Brother is now in a position to repay Sister for covering his share of the party that he and his wife attended and enjoyed, he should man up and do so. I suspect these nasty comments from Sister are being prompted by LW's and Brother's own posts and comments--with things like "here we are on our trip down south"; "here's our new car!" "Look at our new TV" and "Off skiing this weekend" which only rubs salt in Sister's wounds, especially if she is now suffering financially or he can afford to pay her back, but chooses to spend the money on himself.
.
Brother sounds like he may have never outgrown the role of being the baby in the family, and now, approaching 50, he still expects his older siblings to take care of him and do the work while indulging himself. Time to be a man.

Dear LW 3: Please tell yourself that just because you shared this experience with your girlfriend it does not mean it will be the same case for the other 7 billion men and women on this planet. The fact that you think all men--and women--are going to feel the same way you and your girlfriend do should make you seriously question how much of a narcissist you are. Speak for yourself. Not for everyone.

Athenawise is totally wrong here; if she didn't have Facebook, this sister would be using that age-old device known as the telephone. We've alllllllll seen those advice-column letters. It's not the technology's fault; it's how you use it. Oh, and having been on Facebook for as long as it's been around (ie, before the public was allowed to use it), I can say I've never experienced a single day of pain or rude conversation. Like everything else in life, what you put into it is what you get out of it; if you have bitchy relatives or cruel friends, don't add them to your profile (or hide them from your feeds/updates. It's that simple.

Re: yeahright

Athenawise is 100% correct actually. Violence/murder is a perfect way to deal with the inventor of a product or service that some people have misused in a way that mildly annoyed her.

@Kitty #9
"Probably the only way to get her to stop is to agree to pay the rest of the money"
I'm not sure it's even worth it for him to waste his money. I think Athenawise has a point. She'll probably start bitching about what she had to go through to extract the money out of him even after he's finished to the last cent. What you said after the quote.

@Laura #17
No, and I was wondering about that too.

@Casey #21
What did your husband do? I hope he told her to shove it up where the sun don't shine!

@Mike H #29
My fiance is the youngest of 8; the eldest often acts more like parent than sibling to the rest of the brood.
There are many cultures in the world where this is actually normal, and where the eldest is expected to take over the role of head of family after the death of the parents.

Re: Zoe
Well, YEAH, do keep in mind that he's a m-a-n (EEEEEEK!), and therefore to blame for EVERYTHING.

Not to mention Lise Brouillette of course, Lise Brouilletge is very, very evil and it's all her fault if the world economy tanked. ;-D

Hey guys just a little reminder - if you see a turtle just sitting on the road, he's probably sunning himself - please pull over and move him off the road!

@Zoe (28) -- actually, I didn't think that question felt "weird" or "tacked on" -- I think it probably is the question she asked. If it is, then I think it does point to her being far more concerned with her and/or her husband being right than she is with actually resolving the situation. But you are right that it's possible that this letter meandered on without ever asking a question, so the Annies and/or their editors decided to tack one on. But if the Annies/editors tacked that question on, it's sort of odd that's the route they took, since their answer doesn't merely address the "is it right..." question but also goes on to suggest a way to resolve the situation. Like you, I'm not actually arguing here -- we know from alleged LWs coming BTL that these letters frequently get butchered. Of course, as a magazine editor whose seen a lot of letters to the editor and such, I can also attest that sometimes letters get butchered because they are so poorly written in the first place!

Re: Lisa

Yeah, and the tone of her letter is definitely "I'm right, can you believe how crazy my SIL is". I'm just not convinced that question came out of her brain (I'm not convinced it didn't, either - I wouldn't bet my lunch either way, frankly.)

@Mike H (29) -- You raise a valid point, and indeed, those kind of dynamics can occur even with a much smaller family, particularly if the oldest child is significantly older than the youngest. It's one of the reasons I didn't totally discount it being possible. My mother has 10 cousins who are all from the same parents. One of the other things that can happen with a brood that big is that you can wind up with "factions" of siblings who relate well to one another within the "faction" but not so well to the other "factions" -- it's not hard to imagine that two or three of the siblings knew the plan and the others didn't but went along with it, etc.

The other thing is, it sounds like the LW's husband happened to have a lot going on around the time this party was being planned -- new job requiring a move to a new place plus a new wife. It's not hard to imagine that part of the reason he was left out of the loop (if he was) was that he moved further away from their home town, so he wasn't around to help out, wasn't around for some of the discussions, etc., so everyone ELSE knew what was going on and what would be expected, but he didn't. So, again, regardless of what the family dynamics are/were, it's totally possible that this started out as a simple miscommunication/lack of communication (it'd be pretty easy to think you'd told everyone and then realize that, in fact, you hadn't). Similarly, given all that was going on his life at that time, it's entirely possible he WAS told what was going on, but he wasn't really paying attention and then...

Sometimes, narrators are purposely unreliable, sometimes they simply don't have all the facts, so they give what they truly believe is a fair accounting of what happened, but it's not entirely accurate. That is all the more probable when the LW is offering a second-hand account, as is the case here.

@Zoe -- well, no self-respecting fat woman here at the BTL would bet her lunch unless she was DAMN sure of winning! ;)

And speaking of BTL and lunch -- every now and again, I read "BTL" and think "BLT" and then my mouth starts salivating...

Re: Kitty (#22)

Well excuse me on the typo error. I think I know what a "statute of limitations" is and the difference between statue and statute.

And really, the more I think about this letter, the more I think the sister-in-law is just one big BITCH who orchestrated this whole party, with relatively limited input from some of the siblings because of her personality – the "me, me, me, I'm in control and it's MY WAY") Never mind the hundreds of people who came and knew this woman.

Really.

Like I said, it's not as though they went to the poor house by his inability to pay. The time to ask him to pony up was BEFORE the event took place – as in, an agreement beforehand, not five years hence.

@MikeH #29- I can understand your point as this happens a lot in our family. I'm the oldest girl of 7 (one brother older) and I act like the parent of our brood. That's not just my opinion either as my siblings say it often.

I didn't realize you were getting married so congrats on that.

Regardless of the circumstances, if LW1 is being harassed for something to which he didn't agree and it''s being done in a public forum, the fastest way to put an end to it is to go to the MOTHER and tell her the whole story and what the sister is doing. She is obviously still living since they're discussing an 85th birthday celebration; and I very well bet she'd get to the bottom of this - whatever that "bottom" might be - and put an end to it. At a minimum, she might threaten to change her will. LOL

@JustBecause, thanks -- just a little over 2 months to go. As you can imagine, my life nowadays is pretty much consumed with wedding preparations! :-)

Re: graham072442

No offense but that sounds like a terrible solution. Brother and sister (in their 50s-60s) are fighting over 84-year-old mom's birthday party, so go rat out your sister? If she doesn't already know, that's only going to make their mother feel bad, that her kids are fighting over her birthday celebration. Additionally, she's in her 80s and probably doesn't need the stress of feuding children. Lastly, they are grownups, and should be able to figure this out without mommy.

Re: Bobaloo
I wasn't correcting your spelling - if I tried to do that, it would be a full-time job BTL (not necessarily with you, but others too - myself included on several occasions). But there are MANY people who think the proper term IS "statue of limitations", so I was simply clarifying that.

Haha, lots of people don't know statue/statute. I learned it from that Seinfeld episode...

Re: Zoe #46
Agree completely! Getting Mom involved is a very bad idea.

@graham072442 -- just chiming in to agree with Zoe and Kitty. Bringing the mother into this is NOT a good idea. Moreover, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are now planning an 85th birthday party for her. Yes, it is five years after the 80th birthday party, but there is no mention of any discussion of another birthday party for her.

TO ALL-
Regarding last Friday's column (3 May) - the OP from LW1 visited again yesterday and explained quite a bit more about the situation with her three sons and husband's two daughters. She seems to want more advice.

Re: Kitty (#47)

OK. No harm, no foul.

Mike #10- I think you got it right; try to pay her what you can in installments on the condition that she shut the bleep up! I know people like the SIL- they love to plan things, like parties, group gifts- and they have Champaign tastes. They NEVER ask anyone if they should make the non-refundable order, they just do, and then they present everyone with a bill. A former friend did this to a group of us, and we had never even discussed giving a gift to the friend who was moving away. She commissioned an artist to build a replica of her house and she gave us a bill for $40 each. This was years ago, when $40 could buy my weekly groceries. Then, this 'organizer' moved away, and invited some of us to a party at her house. At the end of the party, she sat us down and said we each owed $45 for the party! Needless to say, it was the last time I ever spoke to her. So, yes, some people are like that, and I believe every word of the letter.

Thank you for the heads up, Miss Pasko!

@ Mike H, Patty Bear

I cannot believe you two are advocating that LW1's husband set up an installment plan to payback the narcissistic sister for something SHE took it upon HERSELF to do and apparently spared no expense in the process. It was a birthday party for Pete's sake; not the coronation of Prince William. Whatever happened to cake and petits fours? No, an installment plan is just wrongheadedness. Sorry. Given the fact that the LW's husband is paying for the mortgage of a daughter leads me to think that perhaps this sister is taking advantage of the fact that the husband is gullible at best or easily manipulated into handing out money at worst. If someone sends me a bill for something I had no say in whatsoever, I wouldn't hesitate to toss it in the trash. Why on earth would anyone want to "keep the peace" with such a person?

@Athenawise post #1 - well I completely disagree with everything you're about, but I'll stop one step short of saying you should be taken out and shot. Facebook is a new way to communicate, nothing more. Ann Landers herself thought the internet itself (which you are clearly using and enjoying) was a terrible thing because people were using it to cheat on their spouses. The internet is a tool, and so is Facebook. And so are you.

LW1; your husband should never have agreed to pay her "back" in the first place if she made the plans without any input from you. Period.

Tell her to drop dead. HER plans, HER choice, HER damn bills.

Re: Jane (#31)

Now come on -- I'm just getting around to reading some of the other comments, but I suspected there might be someone totally in the sister's court. And not justifiably so.

She's in the poorhouse? Because she lost out on $200 per year, which -- presuming she is successful (she's probably in her late 50s) she can forget about. What he posts on Facebook is HIS business; if he chooses to be a narcissist, so be it, but the sister shouldn't let it bother her if it is.

It's just the mere thought of you claiming this guy wanted to come for free grub and beer and not have to pay a red cent. Yeah, I realize there are people out there like this, but I don't think it's this guy, even with his other obligations (daughter's mortage, child support, their own rent, which cannot be discounted).

In fact, I'm cutting the LW's husband an even bigger break. I suspect -- strongly -- that family relations are strained, with the oldest sister being the bossy bitch and rubbing one or more the wrong way. I call her the Prairie Dawn, the bitchy Muppet from Sesame Street who bossed people around in the name of "leadership." Sure, there may have been "some" input from some of the siblings, but how much it was valued or accepted, or even if all of them were even consulted I guess we'll never know. (I have to wonder, though -- I really have to wonder.) In fact, I really have to wonder if this party wasn't so much honoring mother as it was putting herself high on a pedestal ... "Look at me, I threw this great party! Ain't I great?!"

One thing that REALLY gets me is people who are not consulted for their opinion in situations like this. I don't care if that was the case here -- I'm saying it. Such as a boss who consults only some of the workers for ideas in improving the workplace but leaves one or two out because he doesn't care about their opinion. Or whatever ... .

I'd tell oldest sister -- BITCH, WRITE OFF THIS AS A LOSS!!! OK, maybe things should have been worked out a little bit better to allow the LW's husband to pay, but BITCH, it's time to put this one to rest and go back into your hot tub and relax in your luxury soap.

@Chris, there's a few issues here that you aren't considering -- one, that the LW might not have all the facts straight, and it's entirely possible her husband had an opportunity to derail these plans earlier on and didn't. There are times when silence does equal complicity.

And two, there are many people for whom the principle (or the money) isn't worth sacrificing their relationship with family members. And since the LW does indicate that it's not just the big sister, but others in the family that are turning against the LW's husband, there's a lot at stake here.

(Also, the fact that others in the family *are* turning against the LW's husband is another argument in favor of the fact that the LW may not be aware of the full story, that her husband actually DID acquiesce but didn't tell his wife!)

I was more thinking that he could use the possibility (note I said "try to pay off" rather than "should pay off") to resolve the more immediate problem -- that big sister is trashing his reputation and airing dirty laundry for the world to see. To me, that is the more urgent situation.

It's quite likely that he's not ready to sacrifice his relationship with this sister (and possibly other of his siblings) to take a hard-line stance like you suggest. It's not ideal, I know, and I do sympathize with your feelings on this. But the emotionally-satisfying-in-the-moment answer may not be the *best* answer for this family in the long run.

Re: Steve C
Frankly Steve, I didn't take this literally and neither should anyone. Mister Trinidad used to say about anyone who aggravated him, "they should lined up against a wall and shot with SHIT!", and I read this as as version of the same.

Yeah, Miss Pasko, thanks - since the page was archived, I never would have gone back to check.

Re: Bobaloo ( 58)

Calm down, Brian. Are you having trouble at work? No need to go ballistic like that.

Dear LW1:
It is never correct to plan an event with the expectation that one's 'guests' will contribute financially - an invitation is not an invoice. However, this instance may be an exception and the Annie's are making allowance for that: since it's you and not your husband writing in, the exact circumstances re the planning/financing of the party are unknown, even to you. It's unlikely your husband was unaware of the plan for the celebration as well as all discussion regarding cost. Whether your husband was 'silent' on the issue (which, as one poster pointed out, can indicate agreement) or agreed to participate (but didn't like the final tally? Didn't want you to know the true expense?? After all, that money comes out of your joint pocket), the family may well have had the expectation he would contribute. What informs me is your statement that this disagreement is now causing a 'serious rift' with OTHER siblings - and because you can't know, they could be right.
Sis should not try to shame your husband into paying and using social media/family members is wrong on every level. But the 'problem' is your husband's to solve, because only HE 'knows' what really happened 5 years ago and what he did or did not do. If his family in any way relied upon a contribution from him, then he should 'step up' and pay his share. An installment plan would certainly make that a lot easier for him.

LW1 - I do not feel the Aunt is imagining that this child is being abused. So many people turn their cheeks to abuse; I give props to her for contacting CPS. I pray that they intervene and help this family. My opinion of CPS is not very high, though.

LW2 - People who love affection must respect other people's boundaries.

LW3 - Some people just give up on their marriage. It's a shame that this poor guy did all he could, only to lose his family. I hope he finds someone worthy of his love.

Re: Bobaloo on yesterday's LW1

I would not entertain anyone who planned an elaborate party without my knowledge or input and then demanded I pay up! I would offer what I could afford (out of love for my parents) and tell them to stick their attitude where the sun doe NOT shine.

Re: Anji (#64)

No disrespect to your opinions in this thread, but I think you may be referring to letters in the May 10 thread. LW1, as you can see, has to do with a birthday party (which you do refer to in post #65), LW2 has to do with a man who proposed to his girlfriend to reinvigorate a relationship and LW3 spoke about elderly people finding companionship and friendship in their late years – and I don't think you meant this but the responses don't quite match up.

Sorry.

And FTR – I definitely agree with your response to my thoughts on the topic. The more I think about it – and it's building folks – the more I think the LW's sister-in-law is a bossy woman and grudge holder.

Once again, LET IT GO!

Lise B post #60 - geez, speaking of taking things literally. Your saying that I truly think that given the opportunity, Athenawise would literally shoot Mark Zuckerburg? Obviously she's making a sort of metaphor, albeit very inappropriately.

LW1 - An installment plan for something the guy never agreed to pay for? Uh.....No. Big sis went out on a limb and did this all by herself and for herself and wracked up big bill. Too bad for her.

LW2 - Yes siree because all dem lil wiminz out there jist need to know their menfolk loves 'em nuff to murry 'em.

LW3 - My BIL is a Shriner. Although they do some good works you couldn't pay me to hang out with those folks.

Re: Rick--My brother is, too, and we tease him about looking like a terrorist in his turban. (He's got a full dark beard.)

I've asked him when he's going to get some of those curly gold shoes or ride in the little clown car. I agree they do a LOT of good works, but I'd be bored to death if I had to be part of that.

LW1: I swear sometimes I wonder if the annies are retarded or the products of inbreeding. Your husband doesn't owe his idiotic sister anything but a slap upside her stupid and greedy head. He should post on her facebook for everyone to see that he never agreed to anything and she's a moron for planning a party and then foisting the bill for it onto her siblings.

LW2: Well, here the annies redeem themselves. Please explain how you've decided your wife is a representative of all women. LOL Idiot.