A vacation home mishap led to a family feud. A Reddit user's dilemma has sparked widespread discussion online, with several people expressing support.
A modern house with a swimming pool | Source: Pexels
Recently, a Redditor shared a story that strikes at the heart of family responsibility and financial accountability. The Original Poster (OP) owns a vacation home that they occasionally rent out.
This setup includes a specific insurance policy that covers the property during rental periods but excludes times when friends and family use it for free.
A family get together during Christmas | Source: Pexels
It was under such circumstances that OP's brother and his family were staying at the house just after New Year's, a period described by OP as a slow time, implying minimal financial loss from not renting it out.
The incident unfolded when OP's nephew, a 14-year-old, stayed up late one night and did not go out for breakfast with his family. As a resort, he decided to cook for himself, leading to a kitchen fire.
A person cooking in the kitchen | Source: Pexels
Despite the availability of a fire extinguisher, the teenager panicked and called 911. "He is 14 so I can't blame him too much," said OP. The resulting smoke damage amounted to approximately $8,700.
OP approached his brother about covering the repair costs, suggesting "he could take his time paying me back." However, the brother refused, labeling the mishap an "innocent mistake."
A man getting money from his wallet | Source: Pexels
Faced with the necessity to repair the damage and the reluctance to involve insurance due to potential rate hikes, OP fixed everything at his own expense.
This decision led to frustration, prompting OP to vent online about the incident and his brother's refusal to contribute financially. The family's reaction sided with the "innocent angel," arguing against the fairness of expecting such a substantial repayment. "They said it was unfair for me to expect that much money from him when he could have rented a hotel for 1/4 the price," OP explained.
A picture of a hotel entrance | Source: Pexels
In response to the situation and the overwhelming family pressure, OP instituted a new rule: the vacation home would henceforth be off-limits unless family members rented it or visited as guests when OP was present.
This policy effectively restricted free usage and placed a financial or physical limitation on family access to the property. Since OP only uses the vacation home with loved ones, the relatives could rent it all or only use the empty bedroom. The decision was met with outcry from family members, who deemed it unfair for actions they considered not their fault.
A man and a woman arguing while pointing fingers at each other | Source: Pexels
OP's compromise was to suggest a collective effort to cover repair costs or increased insurance premiums, a proposal that silenced most critics. Yet, the brother at the center of the dispute reacted with anger, resenting being held accountable for the situation.
OP said, "I directed them all to my brother. He got quite angry at me for blaming him for the situation. I said I wasn't about to send a mob after my nephew." OP's investment in the vacation home is not merely a matter of luxury but a financial strategy following a worksite accident settlement.
The rental income supplements OP's earnings, highlighting the significance of the property's maintenance and the impact of the kitchen fire on OP's financial planning. OP explained:
"I use the income to supplement the difference in what I used to earn at my old job and what I do now."
A family preparing for a get together during Christmas | Source: Pexels
The story culminates with OP directing those dissatisfied with the new rental policy or cramped accommodations to discuss their grievances with the brother, whose refusal to pay initiated the series of events leading to the strict new rule.
OP asked the Reddit community if it was wrong to refer those who have a problem with renting out the home place to talk to the brother instead.
One Reddito suggested OP take the legal route, writing, "NTA. You should also consider suing your brother." However, OP explained that would not be possible, penning, "He doesn't have a lot of money. That's why I offered to let him pay it off over time."
Was OP wrong for asking his brother to pay for the damages? Do you think it is well within his right to enforce a new rule that would work to his advantage? What would you have done in OP's position?
Read more about a father who refused to pay for his daughter's wedding because she excluded two of her siblings from the occasion.