Response to "Whose futon is it, anyway?"

A while back we took on a letter from a person whose ex-roommate had left behind a futon, saying that if it didn't sell on Craigslist in 12 days the LW could have it, and then demanding it back after three months.

One of the questions I asked was, "What unaddressed issues leap out at you from this question?" The main thing I was getting at is that the LW seems to have been a terrific doormat, writing that the roommate "consistently shorted me on the cable bill and hardly ever bought household supplies and [I] had done all of the cleaning," yet insisting that said roommate was "not a bad guy." (He is as far as I'm concerned.) The letter ends with two questions: "Am I correct in thinking that the futon is mine? Would it be ethical to charge him a storage fee if he insisted on getting it back?"

I'm not sure how the LW thinks they are going to be able to extract a storage fee from someone they're not living with, when they couldn't get half the cable bill from the guy when he was right there in the house. But Anne with an E gets at what I was really thinking:

Judging by the description of your co-existence with this person, you spent your shared tenancy as a doormat, never addressing division of labor or financial discrepancies in order to keep the peace. This is fine - we all have to decide where to draw the line (and overlook some things) when it comes to shared living. But you never specifically framed the situation to your ex-roomie as a "You were a less-than-great roommate so I get to keep our futon" type of thing. So don't even bring it into the discussion. He agreed to give you the futon after a specific date, that date has long past, end of story.

Exactly. I think the ex-roommate sounds like a rat, but that isn't the point.

Everyone agreed that the LW had the right to keep the futon (though not to charge the ex-roommate a storage fee, as that had never been part of the original agreement). So the real question isn't one of ethics, but tactics. What's more important--keeping the peace, or as heatherv1211 wittily put it, keeping the piece?

A couple of folks made good points about getting things in writing--kdub was particularly clever:

Oh and also, you might want to send him an email or text reminding him of your "if it doesn't sell after 12 days on craigslist it's yours" agreement and he in any way confirms that but says "yeah well I changed my mind" or "well it didn't sell and now I want it back" hold on to those. Those can also be your proof that you two did have an agreement (that's assuming that he doesn't deny making that agreement).

... but somehow I don't really see this one ending up in small-claims court. The roommate sounds like a user, but a disorganized and lazy user. As ruthling predicts,

Someone that flaky will probably stand you up a couple of times when he schedules to come and take the futon, and will probably expect you to carry it, and maybe even rent him a truck to move it with.

Indeed. Trying to give the futon back might actually take up more of the LW's time and energy than trying to hang onto it! I liked JoGeek's take on the situation:

This is a situation where you have to weigh principle against pest potential. Sure, you're right that he has no claim to the futon. If you really want to solve the problem on that principle, sell the futon yourself and get a couch. The ex-roommate can't fight to get something back that simply isn't there anymore. If your goal, however, is to never hear from or deal with your roommate again, then give them the futon. Is your peace of mind worth it? You'll have the karma and satisfaction of being the better person, with a bonus of no more e-mails.

Either way you should consider an option that gets the thing out of your apartment. Keeping it will only serve to remind you of the ex roommate every time you look at it. Do you really have enough fond memories of them for that? Sell it or swap for a couch on Craigslist, then block the ex-roommate's e-mail and move on. Don't engage them, don't respond, don't communicate, don't lend energy to their dissatisfaction. Or, as I usually put it, don't feed the troll. Trust me that in the long run it's more satisfying than the instant gratification of snark.

And Molly's even more succinct one:

Tell him you've sold it, then do so.

Yep.

Here's an interesting thing, though ... the number of people who spoke of giving up the futon without a fight as being the better, more mature, bigger, etc. thing to do (as in JoGeek's comment above). I disagree. This is why I am not a pacifist. I think, actually, keeping the futon is the right thing to do, not only because the LW is entitled to it, but because Userboy needs to learn that the world doesn't exist for his convenience, and what better time than now?

I don't think that hitting back when you are hit means you are participating in evil--I think it means you are stopping it. (If you hit back strategically, that is. bah humbug's comment--#9--was too long to post here, but it's a very interesting analysis of the problem from the point of view of game theory. Go check it out.) I think, actually, not fighting back--allowing yourself to be a victim when you have the choice not to be--is participating in evil. "When you have the choice not to be" is, of course, the operative phrase. I'm certainly not blaming people who are not capable of fighting back effectively or who are not in a position to do so.

And then of course, there is the question of time and energy. "Participating in evil" is perhaps a melodramatic phrase, but we all do it every day, because we can't track down the ramifications of all our actions. We pay taxes that support government actions we believe are wrong. We buy food and clothing from stores that exploit their workers and harm the environment, because that is what we can afford. We make compromises and trade-offs. That's what life is. If the LW decided that fighting the Good Futon Fight was simply too much trouble right now, I wouldn't judge them. The time spent arguing over the futon could be spent reading a book, or volunteering at a soup kitchen, or writing in a journal, or simply hanging out over beers with some friends. Who am I to say how others should prioritize their lives?

But when you can fight back, and are moved to do so, I think you should, and not consider the impulse to do so selfish or feral in the least. Turning the other cheek simply sends the message that it's okay to go around hitting people in the face.