AIBU to expect my husband to pay me back for deposit money?

Always shared every penny

Did he put money in too? I’d be a bit worried if yours in the only money financing this.

DH and I have always had our finances separate. When we worked we earned a similar amount. We both paid the same amount into the joint account and all bills came from there. We had our our personal spends eg mobile, haircuts, nails, clothing and gifts for each other. Joint gifts came from joint account. Now we are early retired. I've bought property and invested money whereas DH tends to spend a bit more than me. He has a much bigger pension than me but I have rental income. If he wanted something I would lend him money but like you OP I'd expect it to be paid back. On divorce finances split but inherited money if never been put into joint pot is often doscarded. We keep finances separate but share everything else and are happily married. OP looks into business loans for business startups. Your DH should be able to pay you back from profits without paying tax on it.

We share our resources as a family. We don’t do his and her money.

If he borrowed it for business reasons then he absolutely should get a letter to outline what is owed and how it is to be paid back. Or, you should be a proportionate partner and draw an income.

In this instance, I don’t feel it is unreasonable

My original comment was ‘not everything is automatically joint…. Which is correct! We have both said that. I don’t need to read more about it because I’ve explained circumstances it becomes shared but back to my original comment, that was correct! Not everything is automatically joint

Nope, you split the investment into 2
separate isa allowances

and you can both earn up to £1000 on interest/divs tax free before moving into ISA.

or move even more non ISA savings into lower tax rate spouse

or have a total of £100k in premium bonds tax free

theres way more flexibility married than not married. Provided you trust each other

I’d not be doing that without a marriage certificate!

Read up a bit more…whilst you are right that if you don’t merge it, in principle, you retain it, and court will agree that, and will want to agree to that …none the less it does not over right courts legal duty to meet “needs” of both parties under “fair settlement”
so if you have an inheritance that would allow you to buy a house with 2 bedrooms and your spouse would have no assets to house or feed themselves, or accommodate a shared child, without recourse to universal credit, the court will not protect the inheritance. The “needs” part of fair settlement is the priority under the law. You don’t as a divorcee get to walk away, with an inheritance, from a legally binding marriage contract and dump your ex spouse financially on the tax payer . Not unless there ain’t enough money in combined pot for either of you, and there’s no option but to use benefits.
thats why lady gale called it “shared misery”

But having a relationship where you owe me x, because I did that for you is not conducive to staying a couple. Ie if you're behaving like your a business partner rather than a spouse it tells your partner you expect to split. It also says I don't trust you to make a success out of the business so I want my money back now.

Personally I am very old fashioned and we work as a team, discuss everything, finance everything together. We run a successful business. I no longer work in the business as such having decided to retire, my wife still works...that's what we both want to do.

I have my own bank account and savings. I’ve been divorced once before and in my first marriage put everything in the pot only to be done over. I’m not naive enough to believe that there is no way that I could possibly get divorced twice. I have DC, and I have a responsibility to make sure that they receive an inheritance after I have grafted all my life.

DH and I have separate "savings". Approximately yearly we compare them, although we don't keep a tally during that time, the conversation just crops up. Most of the time we have nearly the same amount. The only difference is in our income: He has far more pension income than me, but I pay less into the joint bills.

In OP's case this could be looked on as an investment into a successful future business, so it is a start-up loan. But in marriage most things are/should be 50:50.

DH and I have always had joint finances right from the start, apart from pensions. We each have ISA accounts in our own names but all of the money within them is deemed to be ours jointly.
We started out with nothing. We now have a fair bit tucked away in savings and investments.
If one of us wants to make a significant purchase, such as when I wanted to replace the kitchen, we discuss it first and agree on a budget before committing to anything.
Most of our wealth has come from DH. He had a well paid job and I didn't. He had wealthy parents and I didn't.
When we got married one of the vows was "with all my worldly goods I thee endow", which basically means "everything I have I will share with you."

I totally agree with you in that I think it’s sensible what you are doing.

However, if you divorce then a lot of these agreements you have could be totally ignored and you could end up with 50/50 anyway (I know it’s not quite that simple but it sometimes is). So I get why people think it’s weird. I wouldn’t marry for this reason.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the pp who wrote that was American; it’s a cultural thing and not intended to be offensive. Probably similar to a poster who starts her sentences with “Girl,”

Posters are missing the fact that the DH is self employed. As many ex wives will testify on here, it's easy to hide money/income and then have the children just enough that they are truly fucked over. How many blindsided threads are there on here?
@Doneworking if there is a properly written will, then it's easy to access the money. I've been widowed and executor of a few wills. Probate isn't difficult to do and if the estate is complex, then you can save money by having a solicitor do it.
@Soontobe60 not in England and it depends on how money/property was gained.
@OtterlyMad it isn't insecurities, it's the experience of knowing women who have been financially taken advantage of. Self employed/head of company, husbands, who are planning on leaving, usually because of a OW, sew things up very tightly. My sister-in-laws husband just stopped paying the tax, no-one could trace where the money had gone, it wasn't discovered until the divorce was finalised, but it meant a big bill for her. He'd also disappeared a few work vans. Luckily she'd overpaid the mortgage on another property she owned, so wasn't homeless and could take a mortgage break. People think that they'll have access to accounts etc, but everything can be frozen by the courts.

If you receive an inheritance whilst married and it is solely in your name then it it’s yours only. If it’s kept in an account in only your name then it is yours only. It doesn’t automatically become joint when one of the couple receives it.
If you move the money to a joint account or put it with joint finances for living expenses or putting it into a house or work in both names in can turn into a shared asset.
In a divorce especially if the money has been combined it can be classed as a marital asset and split with all other finances but upon receiving it initially it is not automatically a joint asset.
Not all assets are joint by law as you say. The law distinguishes between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property

Yes we share everything. That’s what being married means. Otherwise you’re just hoarding money away from someone who is the shared legal owner of said money.

But then I didn’t marry someone I don’t trust with money or our future.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong op with what you have said. None of us know what’s round the corner and you might need that money in an emergency.

Nope, the starting point is NOT 50:50

MNers always say this. It is wrong

starting point is “fair settlement”. Ending point is “fair settlement “. Legal definition of “fair settlement “ in marriage act 1975

if that can be achieved with 50:50, then great, courts like that ( and court is involved in dealing all financial settlements even where consent agreements”

but in many cases 50:50 won’t achieve “fair settlement”

people get confused: all assets are joint in marriage. But that’s not 50:50 share..in effect you each own 100% of all assets, as people whose spouse dies knows: and inheritance tax is structured for

Those of you with everything joint, do you not have ISAs? They can’t be held in joint names so do you just miss out on the significant tax benefits?

Yep, absolutely don’t get married if you do not want to share assets

but it isn’t just IHT tax benefits you get from marriage. You can utilise other tax allowances by moving savings into low/bovv bc wage spouse name, and still own it legally in event of divorce. You can get widows benefit ( not a lot I know)…you’ll inherit without a will (not recommended), you’ll be able to be nearest relative legally, ( with or without LPOA, again still best have) And a number of other legal rights that not marrying affords you none if

no such thing as common law spousal rights in England and wales.

horses for courses and all that

They’re married. All debts and assets are considered joint.

We share everything 100%. The only thing we have in writing is that what was mine coming into the marriage is mine at the end because I owned my flat and we used the proceeds of sale of that to buy our house, but everything we’ve made since is shared.

Nope. Not in England and wales. All assets are matrimonial assets by law - they all have to be declared legally. See my earlier post around “fair settlement “…in some circumstances, where there are sufficient assets to support “fair settlement “
on both parties, they can be agreed to be retained . But pre nups, inheritance agreements etc are not legally binding …and may need to be divided even if by consent order you agreed between yourselvrs

The law on fair settlement first protects the state. No bc agreement will be be legally binding if one party walks with an inheritance and the other party is forced into reliance on benefits etc to top up income or looses out disproportionately

so many people don’t realise this. The 6 or so rules on Fair settlement overrule everything else

I do not think you are being unreasonable. If you had not been able or willing to lend him the money, his other option would have been to borrow it from a bank. He would have expected to repay that money with interest.
You formalised the loan, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to expect your agreement to be honoured.