Was this rude? (long, sorry)

In My Humble Opinion
1

Caveat:

My mother-in-law is someone I despise, therefore, I tend to judge her harshly. I don’t trust my own judgments.

Background:

My step-FIL died on Friday. He and my MIL were not actually married, but they lived together since the late 70s and he thought of my husband and my husband’s brother as his stepsons.

My FIL had two daughters.

The day after his death, both sides of the families were at the house my MIL and FIL shared. So, MIL’s two sons, in-laws, and grandchildren, FIL’s two daughters, in-laws, and grandchild.

My FIL and MIL liked to gamble. They regularly crossed the river from Louisville into Indiana to gamble at the casino. They received “comps” for their gambling which included things like meals at the restaurant.

Story:

After my FIL’s death, my MIL decided that she was going to cash in Bob’s “comps” for dinner. She invited her sons, in-laws and grandchildren to dinner at the casino’s restaurant. This meal was paid for by Bob’s gambling habits before his death.

She did not invite Bob’s daughters, in-laws, or grandchild to dinner. One of the daughters, when I asked if she was coming, said specifically, “I wasn’t invited.”

When I asked my husband about it later, he said that his mother said she would take the daughters and their families to dinner, still on Bob’s benefit, some other night.
That’s the tale, and I hope it made sense.
Question:

Is this incredibly rude? My husband says that he doesn’t think it is, especially as his mother would take them out later.

I say that it is incredibly rude to cherrypick a number of guests for dinner, especially since the “comp” benefit did not belong solely, or at all, to my MIL, and more especially because I feel I have zero claim on anything of Bob’s, while his daughters have a huge claim.
So, am I blinded by my hatred of my MIL, or did she do something really rude?

2

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. Everyone has the right to invite whomever they want to go to dinner. And the others will be invited later. I’d say this was something not worth worrying about (even if you never got to go out to dinner at all–I mean, you despise the woman; why would you want to go out to dinner with her?).

3

Minor, borderline rude. Were the daughters told that they’d be invited to their own, separate dinner at another time? If so, then I don’t see anything so bad here. They might even prefer having their own time, rather than slam the whole mix together - that sounds like it would be one big, not so intimate dinner as it is.

4

Not as far as I know, though I don’t know.

It was ghastly. The restaurant is crammed full and so loud everyone had to shout (they’re all deaf anyway), the food was so-so, and it meant time spent with my MIL, which is always bad!

5

On someone else’s dime?

You got the impression from my OP that I was upset I didn’t get asked to dinner? I did get asked to dinner, and I went.

6

It’s not really “his” dime, though, is it? They were for all intents and purposes married, so it was “their” money. They went gambling together. Even if she didn’t work at all or contribute monetarily to the household, it’s still “their” money. They might have decided they’d spend certain portions of their income (“his” money) on gambling and other portions (possibly “her” money) on household maintenance: so it all comes out the same in the end - a sharing of expenses. If he had brought some sum of money into the marriage and made it known that he wanted that money set aside for his kids after his death, and she used it to buy dinner for her side of the family, then that’s another story.

I don’t think it was all that rude. If it were a situation of going to dinner right after the funeral, then yes, very very rude not to include his children. If it was just a dinner at some other point, not rude. Not every family gathering has to include every member of the family.

7

I don’t know.

I guess I feel that his daughters have a very valid claim to his assets, and it isn’t the place of his live-in to start distributing them without consulting his daughters (one daughter is the executor and my MIL is not an heir) and especially not excluding the daughters from the benefit.

It seemed that she grabbed something, claimed it as her own to do with as she pleased, and then (the worst part for me) designated some people as being “her” family and off we all went.

I felt like an interloper, like someone who was taking something inappropriately. I can’t fix it. It’s over and done. But it left a bad feeling in my mouth and I guess I’m trying to figure out why and if it makes sense.

8

Given that the FIL recently passed away, I think it was rude not to take his daughters & relations out to dinner first. It makes her appear selfish (thinking of herself over the others who are also grieving), and it does fuel the idea that she may not take them out at all. Sure, she may claim to, but given that this information was received second-hand and not directly from her, I couldn’t blame you for being skeptical.

Is it a big deal? Not necessarily. But it may represent a pattern in the future–ignoring the FIL’s children now that he’s gone.

9

But they’re not “his” assets. (At least it doesn’t seem like it based on your OP, which obviously could include other facts of which I am unaware.) They’re gambling comps earned while they were both out gambling together. I think it’s not really appropriate to say of two married people who spent money (and earned money/comps) together that one portion is ALL his and one is ALL hers.

In my opinion, you’d have a stronger reason to be ticked if he were the only gambler and always went gambling alone. But even then, he’s still spending the joint money unless they were that rare long-term live-together couple who keep every dollar earned and spent separate from one another, down to the penny.

If she never does invite his kids out too, then you’d have more reason to be miffed, but still not, IMO, a really great case. It’s kind of a gray line to me.

Do you happen to know how much $ of comps total? Are we talking about spending a couple hundred or thousands?

10

She had her own comps. Does that change anything?

And they did keep their assets separate, to a large degree. The house was solely his. They each had their own cars and groceries and bills, and when gambling they each gambled with their own money and got their own comps.

It must be over two or three hundred, but I don’t know how much more.

11

Is it possible Bob asked her to take out the family (his and hers), specifically on his comps, after he died?

I think there’s too many “ifs” here. If she has her own comps and, for example, spends all of Bob’s on her family’s dinner and then says she can’t take out his family because all his comps have been used up (and she still has plenty of her own left), now that’s weird and rude and very wrong.

For now, it’s a little hinky but not much can be done. If it turns into a pattern, then I think you’d have more to be annoyed about.

12

Well, I don’t think it was rude at all. She just lost the man she lived with since the '70’s and decided to go out for dinner with her family - how she paid for it doesn’t really seem like much of an issue. Do you feel that Bob would have not wanted her to spend time with people who made her feel better? If he were somehow able to communicate and she asked if she could spend his comps to have a dinner to make herself feel better about him dying, do you think he would have said no?

Further, even if they wern’t married - if they lived together for 20 odd years wouldn’t some sort of common law statute apply making all his assets hers anyway? (I don’t know how it works in your particular state - in Canada it applies in all provinces).

I suppose it just seems like you’re getting worked up about nothing, and possibly seeing the situation in the worst possible light.

13

Your getting petty over a couple meals here. I’m also sure your hatred of this woman is known by her and the rest of the family. The man she spent all those years with died. She may have wished to be with her daughters alone because she knew that they’d be a ear to listen, to whom she knew she didn’t need to watch every word said. Had the others gone, then she would have not been able to talk freely as she knows you’re hostile towards her. I know that many people like myself want to get away from large groups of people to reflect on a personal level about the dead person and maybe have one or two people join in an activity we all liked to do. It’s the way many people deal with death and a large group doesn’t work.

14

Not to be snarky, but did you read the OP? She asked me to dinner.

And yes, I’m pretty hostile toward a woman who sits around and deliberately tells me about her “nigger doctor” and who thinks belittling my husband is some sort of team sport; however, as I said in the OP, I’m willing to believe I’m thinking the worst of her because I dislike her so.

I shared an email with another in the family who also thought it was inappropriate, but that person isn’t objective either.

15

Well, there you go. The restaurant is small. They might not have been able to accomodate everybody at once. She’s been there so she knows this. A whole lot of nothing, IMO.

The real question is why you chose to go when you hate the woman. I don’t spend time around people who spout off racial slurs and criticize people I love. Even if there is free food involved.

16

I thought I understod the relationships going on here, but the inlaw grandkids and who’s what to whom aparently has me confused. Don’t try to explain it again. I’ve seen families fight over small crap in the scheme of things and not see each other for years because someone got a plate that they wanted or such. I figure you don’t ever have to deal with me, and I would rather you were ticked off with a unknown person than have a family scisim.

17

At first glance, it seems really rude, except if she actually intend to take the rest of the family to dinner another time and has some reason not to dine with the whole family at the same time (maybe she’s tired and that would be too many people?)
That would apply in usual circumstances, but given that her “husband” just passed away…

18

It may or may not have been depending on the specifics. What I can say for sure though is it’s really not worth getting worked up over.

19

The restaurant is the size of a small city.

Because to refuse to go means that a shitstorm hits the man I love, and since I see this vile woman about once a year, I can handle dinner–at the opposite end of the table.
Thanks to everyone for your insights. I think most of you are right, that I am seeing a small rudeness and magnifying it to a larger one based on my dislike of the doer.

Further information has come to light today that makes her subsequent actions worse (she is lying to Bob’s daughters about the comps, they are much larger than I suspected, and no, she isn’t planning on taking them to dinner), but that doesn’t affect her initial actions which may have been rude but more likely just annoyed me because her existence annoys me! :smiley:

20

I think it was hurtful to the FIL’s daughters and also very petty of MIL. Why not have all of you go together? Were the daughters guests in her home at the time?

It doesn’t make sense to me to not invite them. She sounds a selfish woman who I would avoid. All you can do is behave politely, shame her with your civility, and avoid her whenever you can. I would also extend a friendly hand to these daughters, just so they know that it’s not a them vs us thing. But maybe they already know that.

Trust me–I have a MIL just like her (except she doesn’t gamble).