AITA for banning my ex from my property and cancelling my friend’s wedding when he demanded I bring a dateless invite?

I bought my grandparents’ house and agreed to host my friend Dave’s wedding at the gazebo — but after my ex started harassing me post-breakup, the couple asked I skip a plus-one “for Leslie’s sake.” I refused and ultimately told Dave Leslie can’t be on my land; he reacted by cancelling the wedding at my place. AITA?

Last summer I bought my grandparents’ house — the place where my friends and I grew up with a big yard, a lake, and a gazebo. I was originally buying it with my then-girlfriend Leslie, but during mortgage approval I discovered she’d been hiding significant credit card and personal debt through our four-year relationship. I broke up about six months ago. Dave is an old friend whose partner Kim is Leslie’s cousin; when I agreed to host their April wedding at the gazebo it felt right because the property means a lot to our group.

I bought the family property and agreed to host my friend’s wedding — but after my breakup Leslie became intrusive and volatile, and when Dave demanded I prioritise her feelings over my safety and homeowner rights I refused; he walked out and the wedding at my place is now off.

After the split Leslie repeatedly tried to reinsert herself: showing up at my house at odd hours, implying I cheated or took advantage of her financially to mutual friends, and generally escalating drama. I blocked her everywhere and altered my habits to avoid encounters. A few months later, Dave and Kim asked me not to bring a plus-one because they'd worried Leslie would be upset — even though the invitation policy had allowed plus-ones for singles, including me and Leslie. I pushed back: it’s my land, I should be able to bring a date.

"It’s my house and my land — I’m not being told who I can bring to my own property because of an ex."

Dave later confided Leslie still claims she needs closure and would demand a conversation with me at the wedding to show progress on paying off debt — she’s reportedly paid roughly $10,000 off her cards. Dave said he expected me to speak with her at the event; I refused. I made it clear that if she was likely to “lose it” and force me into a confrontation, she would not be allowed on my property. I offered to keep the venue but not allow Leslie onto the land. Dave lost his temper and said he didn’t need the wedding if that was my stance.

"If she’s going to expect me to talk to her on my property, she can’t come — I won’t let her jeopardize my home or force a confrontation."

We met for nearly two hours and I laid out a history of permissive behavior I’ve tolerated to avoid escalation. I told Dave I felt he was coddling Leslie and that I’d bent over backwards for six months. He acknowledged her erratic behavior but pressed that she needed closure; I said I won’t be coerced into that. He ultimately stormed off, saying he’d cancel the venue if I didn’t comply. So the wedding at my place is currently off unless something changes.

🏠 The Aftermath

Right now, the couple has lost their chosen venue and my friendship with Dave is severely strained. I stand by my decision to protect my property and peace of mind; Dave sees my refusal as choosing myself over his wedding. The immediate fallout is a cancelled venue, hurt feelings, and a social rift among mutual friends who had strong ties to that house.

Logistically, I’ve followed through on safety measures in the past (insurance, security plans), but this conflict isn’t about logistics — it’s about whether I will be forced into a personal interaction I’ve blocked and avoided. For Dave and Kim, the cost is scrambling for a replacement venue and a damaged friendship; for me, it’s preserving safety and boundaries at the expense of social fallout.

"I’ve already bent over backwards for months — I won’t be bullied into a conversation on my own property."

I feel both relieved and frustrated: relieved I stood up for my rights as homeowner, frustrated that my long history with these friends is being tested over what I see as a reasonable boundary.

💭 Emotional Reflection

This is about three things colliding: the sentimental value of the property, homeowner rights and safety, and the emotional mess a breakup left behind. You’re entitled to protect your home and emotional boundaries, especially after repeated intrusions and harassment. Weddings are special, but they shouldn’t require you to subject yourself to coercion or the risk of a scene on your own land.

On the other hand, weddings often demand compromises and a host’s generosity. If Dave and Kim genuinely felt stuck, a neutral compromise (moving the ceremony off-site) might have preserved the celebration and relationships without forcing you to accept someone you’ve blocked. That said, compromise only works when both sides are willing and when safety and dignity aren’t sacrificed.

Ultimately, your stance is defensible if the concern is genuine safety and ongoing harassment. If it’s primarily pride, consider whether a smaller concession could save long-term friendships. But no one should be forced into an emotional confrontation on their own property under duress.

Here’s how the community might see it:

“You own the land — you set the rules. If she’s been showing up and causing drama, banning her is reasonable.”

“It sucks for the couple, but their request was unfair: telling a homeowner who to bring to their own property is overstepping.”

“A neutral venue would’ve avoided this — but if you truly fear a blowup, you did the right thing protecting your home.”

Readers will likely split between defending homeowner rights and urging empathy for a wedding’s needs; the core tensions are safety, fairness, and what friendships should cost you.

🌱 Final Thoughts

You offered a meaningful venue out of goodwill, but your circumstances changed after the breakup. Standing up for your emotional safety and homeowner rights is legitimate, even if it upends plans. Ideally the couple could have agreed to move the ceremony to a neutral site to avoid forcing you into an impossible position.

Whatever you choose, be clear about the boundary you’re enforcing and why — and accept that protecting yourself may cost relationships, while compromising may cost your peace.

What would you do?
Would you host the wedding but accept limits on your invite, or stand firm and insist they find a neutral venue? Share your thoughts below 👇