shared family beach house - issue with damaged item

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s moments like this when I realize I am in a wildly different income bracket than DCUM. My response is WTF would you leave a $275 item at a house that’s not yours????

My response is who spends $275 on a toy for a child to use a few weeks a year on vacation.

But I am really still stuck on the fact that OP’s in laws share their house with their son’s wife’s brother’s cousin. Does he pay rent? Is is possible he just doesn’t know about the various sheds?

Also how does brother have different cousins from sister?

[Anonymous]

I will note that we only buy $15 boogie boards which we leave at the beach house WE ACTUALLY OWN. No one needs a $275 boogie board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s moments like this when I realize I am in a wildly different income bracket than DCUM. My response is WTF would you leave a $275 item at a house that’s not yours????

My response is who spends $275 on a toy for a child to use a few weeks a year on vacation.

But I am really still stuck on the fact that OP’s in laws share their house with their son’s wife’s brother’s cousin. Does he pay rent? Is is possible he just doesn’t know about the various sheds?

Also how does brother have different cousins from sister?

If you can't read, just don't respond.

[Anonymous]

Cutting through all the noise and usual DCUM nonsense here, it appears that (i) item was in the "not for general use" shed; (ii) cousin wanted to see how it worked, and took it out even though he knew he was wasn't supposed to; (iii) it got broken as a result. Cousin should have replaced the item. It's that simple. As for the "well it was used" nonsense, cousin isn't an insurance company, that depreciates your car when you get in an accident. Again, if you break something, you replace it with an equal (or better) item. How is this remotely controversial?

That said, OP, I'd probably not have made a stink about getting the full value, for the sake of family harmony. And you definitely can't make an issue over the color, FFS.

Finally, what precisely does a $275 boogie board do that a regular cheap one doesn't?

[Anonymous]

I've decided to read no further than page 1 because you've proven to be not too bright for buying a $275 boogie board.

[Anonymous]

I bet cousin offered 50% because he knew it was expensive and didn't want to pay to replace. Any normal person would just run to the store and buy a new one, or go online and order a replacement. He prob googled it, got pissed and then made this offer to pay 50% of the used cost because he's cheap and he knew it would put OP's DH in a crappy position, either take his unfair offer and be quiet or he blows it up and tells everyone, which be obviously did.

Cousin sucks for sure and OP might be a dummy for buying a $275 item for occasional use and leaving it in a shared place, but OP still is the biggest loser here because now she and DH are the ones who will seem like jerks.

[Anonymous]

OK, but seriously, what type of boogie board costs $275? I just spent the last ten minutes googling and couldn't find anything over $249 - and then only one at that price. Everything else was less than $150, with most being $65 or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, but seriously, what type of boogie board costs $275? I just spent the last ten minutes googling and couldn't find anything over $249 - and then only one at that price. Everything else was less than $150, with most being $65 or less.

+1 It's absurd, and beyond absurd to leave it behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it was petty and penny-pinching to insist on full cost replacement and would have been more graceful to tell the cousin not to worry about it. But then it was also petty and penny-pinching to assign depreciation of 50%. So in classic DCUM fashion everyone in this story sucks.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, but seriously, what type of boogie board costs $275? I just spent the last ten minutes googling and couldn't find anything over $249 - and then only one at that price. Everything else was less than $150, with most being $65 or less.

My only guess is that OP changed some identifying details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the owners is my husband's father. The other 2 owners are the dads brother and sister (cousin's mom).
The boogie board was $275.
The child that broke the board wasn't staying at the house, but they were all at the beach at the same time.
We have other things at the house that we allow others to use and these are in the main shed or in the house. I disagree with some of you about just letting this go. The rules of the house were clear. We have not had issues in the past 12 years that we have been using it. If it was me who damaged something, I'd replace it, and we did this once when we bought a new beach umbrella when the old one another cousin contributed broke as I was opening it.
Glad the cousin finally agreed to compensate us and annoyed his mom is getting in the middle.

+ 1

Since the aunt's child (cousin) also does not pay any rental, she should keep her nose out of this. Next time. label your things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was petty and penny-pinching to insist on full cost replacement and would have been more graceful to tell the cousin not to worry about it. But then it was also petty and penny-pinching to assign depreciation of 50%. So in classic DCUM fashion everyone in this story sucks.

This.

I don't agree. I won't be paying for some random kid to come and break our expensive items. It is common decency to replace other people's belongings that kids under your care break. Good for you, OP.

[Anonymous]

I'm also over here attempting to google the mythic 275$ boogie board.

[Anonymous]

Wrong behavior all around here. The ones who broke it should have offered full price.
The owners should have accepted half price offered.

I understand the rules but if you leave things there they will likely get used, broken, disappear, damaged etc. Relationships are worth more than stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#firstworldproblems

We live in a first world country. So what is the issue?

We can't complain because we arent in Sierra Leone?

Okay, fine, I’ll change it to #richpeopleproblems. It’s akin to “omg I haven’t slept for DAYS because I’m up all night stressing over whether or not I picked the right tile for my backyard pool.” Sorry, I don’t feel sorry for you.

OP can afford a $275 boogie board. The “good ones” are $40-50 and you can get them as cheap is $5. Does a $275 boogie board operate that much differently than a $50 board? Doubtful.

Op has access to a FREE beach house for family vacations.
Op didn’t want to put forth the effort of bringing said expensive boogie board home or storing it in her house all year. Does it suck that it got broken? Sure. But this whole post reeks of privilege and entitlement.

Just because something is free doesn't mean all manners and rules go out the window. The cousin and guests also got a free week, that doesn't mean they can trash the place and break things that aren't theirs.

I’m sure they didn’t break it on purpose! If I visited a beach house and my kid accidentally broke a boogie board I would be happy to buy a new one….a $50 one to replace it. $275 is absurd—and apparently not that great of a board if it breaks that easily.