SINGAPORE: A 67-year-old man turned to the court in an attempt to revoke his spousal maintenance obligations, saying that he had been retrenched and was of advanced age.
Mr Moey Park Moon who, from January 2013, had to pay his ex-wife Leong Yim Ling S$4,000 (about US$3,100) a month for spousal maintenance, among other obligations, said that this would cost him at least S$1.2 million over the next 20 years.
His living expenses would amount to about S$494,000 in that same period, and he urged the court to consider that Ms Leong had enough money for her own retirement and had not sought any form of employment.
In a judgment released on Tuesday (Mar 17), Justice Pang Khang Chau dismissed Mr Moey's application, but converted his periodic maintenance obligations to an order for a lump-sum maintenance of S$364,800.
Mr Moey is appealing against this decision.
Mr Moey married Ms Leong in 1984 and the couple had a son 10 years later. They filed for divorce in 2009, with final judgment granted in 2013.
As part of the divorce, Mr Moey was given maintenance obligations towards his ex-wife. which included spousal maintenance of S$4,000 a month from January 2013. This was later varied to become S$5,150 a month, including a base sum of S$4,000, as well as S$300 a month for travel and S$850 for medical, dental and optical expenses.
Justice Pang noted that this case was the latest episode in "an acrimonious relationship that has seen the parties face off in numerous contested proceedings before the courts in the decade or so following the end of their marriage".
This application was Mr Moey's third try at seeking a variation of his spousal maintenance obligations, the judge noted.
In past proceedings, Mr Moey had originally offered to pay a lump sum in maintenance but withdrew this offer because his income had "fallen substantially". He claimed that his ex-wife's alleged harassment had contributed significantly to the loss of his job.
He was previously the managing director of Marsh (Singapore), an insurance broker and risk advisory firm, earning about S$37,000 monthly. He also used to be a senior risk engineer with insurance company HDI Global SE, earning a monthly salary of around S$17,500.
However, he claimed that he has since been retrenched and relies on savings and investments for his old age. He said that he had extended his employment a few times but could not do so further as his employer was unwilling to re-employ him "for his own health and safety" and for the company's insurance liability exposure.
He stopped working in late 2024.
Mr Moey argued that he had already worked past the retirement age and this was not a situation where he voluntarily resigned, but where he had pleaded with his company to re-employ him past retirement age.
He added that his age would have a severe impact on whether or not he would be in a position to find another job that would match his former income.
He also said that although his savings would allow him to continue paying maintenance for some time, this would eventually be unsustainable.
He emphasised that the intention of spousal maintenance was "not to create a lifetime dependency and/or a free meal ticket, but to allow the ex-wife to transition to a post-divorce life".
Mr Moey also argued that it would be desirable for
Ms Leong opposed her ex-husband's application, saying that a large portion of his submissions had already been raised in past proceedings and dismissed.
She doubted her ex-husband's assertion that he was unemployed or that he would have difficulty finding employment. She argued that his financial situation was "much better" than he made it out to be.
Ms Leong also claimed that her medical conditions had deteriorated and it would be impossible for her to continue treatment or take her medication if she stopped receiving spousal maintenance.
She asserted that she had no savings for retirement and it would be "impossible" for her to get a decent paying job due to her lack of experience and the attention that her son - who has Asperger's Syndrome - requires.
Ms Leong added that she was 65 and had devoted her entire life to taking care of their son and she had no choice but to continue being a homemaker.
Justice Pang said that the authorities do not support Mr Moey's position that his unemployment and alleged inability to continue working are enough to justify rescinding the maintenance order.
A spouse's retirement would already have been borne in mind by any court making a maintenance order, since it is a certainty that no one would be employed for the whole of his life, Justice Pang added.
He also said that except in cases where a spouse has to retire at an unexpectedly young age due to ill health, the event of retirement cannot be properly characterised as a material change in circumstances.
It is a consistent position that a husband's obligation to maintain the ex-wife continues beyond his retirement, the judge said.
Instead, the court should focus on whether the husband's retirement, when considered together with his overall financial circumstances, constitute a material change in circumstances that makes him incapable of paying maintenance.
Justice Pang said the evidence showed that Mr Moey owed five properties in Malaysia, four insurance policies valued at about S$121,500 in total, and two investment accounts with a total balance of about S$92,300.
Mr Moey had also received a sum of about S$327,380 in withdrawn funds from his Central Provident Fund accounts in October 2024 when he renounced his Singapore permanent residency in order to return to Malaysia after retiring.
Recent balances in his bank account statements also showed that he would have about S$378,750 in savings in late 2024 or early 2025. In the four years before his retirement, he was earning an average of S$246,000 a year.
His monthly living expenses were about 6,694 ringgit (S$2,182), with monthly mortgage payments amounting to 9,200 to 9,400 ringgit monthly.
Justice Pang found that this financial information showed that Mr Moey had enough alternative financial resources to continue paying maintenance to his ex-wife.
Mr Moey had submitted that it would be "unreasonable" for the court to punish him for leading a frugal lifestyle since the divorce and for working past retirement age to save up as much as possible, but the judge said that it was neither "punitive" or "unreasonable".
This is because a husband is obliged to maintain his former wife beyond his retirement and up to the former wife's remarriage, or until either one of them dies.
Justice Pang said that a clean break was "obviously desirable" in this case and that Mr Moey has repeatedly defaulted on his maintenance obligations, requiring his ex-wife to commence applications to enforce them.
However, Ms Leong failed to disclose certain details such as a loan she had purportedly received. The judge drew an adverse inference against her that she had undisclosed assets and was in a better financial position than she made herself out to be.
Because of this, he reduced the figure he used to calculate the lump-sum maintenance and rescinded Mr Moey's obligation to pay 95 per cent of his ex-wife's hospital and surgical bills.
Continue reading...
Mr Moey Park Moon who, from January 2013, had to pay his ex-wife Leong Yim Ling S$4,000 (about US$3,100) a month for spousal maintenance, among other obligations, said that this would cost him at least S$1.2 million over the next 20 years.
His living expenses would amount to about S$494,000 in that same period, and he urged the court to consider that Ms Leong had enough money for her own retirement and had not sought any form of employment.
In a judgment released on Tuesday (Mar 17), Justice Pang Khang Chau dismissed Mr Moey's application, but converted his periodic maintenance obligations to an order for a lump-sum maintenance of S$364,800.
Mr Moey is appealing against this decision.
THE CASE
Mr Moey married Ms Leong in 1984 and the couple had a son 10 years later. They filed for divorce in 2009, with final judgment granted in 2013.
As part of the divorce, Mr Moey was given maintenance obligations towards his ex-wife. which included spousal maintenance of S$4,000 a month from January 2013. This was later varied to become S$5,150 a month, including a base sum of S$4,000, as well as S$300 a month for travel and S$850 for medical, dental and optical expenses.
Justice Pang noted that this case was the latest episode in "an acrimonious relationship that has seen the parties face off in numerous contested proceedings before the courts in the decade or so following the end of their marriage".
This application was Mr Moey's third try at seeking a variation of his spousal maintenance obligations, the judge noted.
In past proceedings, Mr Moey had originally offered to pay a lump sum in maintenance but withdrew this offer because his income had "fallen substantially". He claimed that his ex-wife's alleged harassment had contributed significantly to the loss of his job.
He was previously the managing director of Marsh (Singapore), an insurance broker and risk advisory firm, earning about S$37,000 monthly. He also used to be a senior risk engineer with insurance company HDI Global SE, earning a monthly salary of around S$17,500.
However, he claimed that he has since been retrenched and relies on savings and investments for his old age. He said that he had extended his employment a few times but could not do so further as his employer was unwilling to re-employ him "for his own health and safety" and for the company's insurance liability exposure.
He stopped working in late 2024.
Mr Moey argued that he had already worked past the retirement age and this was not a situation where he voluntarily resigned, but where he had pleaded with his company to re-employ him past retirement age.
He added that his age would have a severe impact on whether or not he would be in a position to find another job that would match his former income.
He also said that although his savings would allow him to continue paying maintenance for some time, this would eventually be unsustainable.
He emphasised that the intention of spousal maintenance was "not to create a lifetime dependency and/or a free meal ticket, but to allow the ex-wife to transition to a post-divorce life".
Mr Moey also argued that it would be desirable for
Ms Leong opposed her ex-husband's application, saying that a large portion of his submissions had already been raised in past proceedings and dismissed.
She doubted her ex-husband's assertion that he was unemployed or that he would have difficulty finding employment. She argued that his financial situation was "much better" than he made it out to be.
Ms Leong also claimed that her medical conditions had deteriorated and it would be impossible for her to continue treatment or take her medication if she stopped receiving spousal maintenance.
She asserted that she had no savings for retirement and it would be "impossible" for her to get a decent paying job due to her lack of experience and the attention that her son - who has Asperger's Syndrome - requires.
Ms Leong added that she was 65 and had devoted her entire life to taking care of their son and she had no choice but to continue being a homemaker.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
Justice Pang said that the authorities do not support Mr Moey's position that his unemployment and alleged inability to continue working are enough to justify rescinding the maintenance order.
A spouse's retirement would already have been borne in mind by any court making a maintenance order, since it is a certainty that no one would be employed for the whole of his life, Justice Pang added.
He also said that except in cases where a spouse has to retire at an unexpectedly young age due to ill health, the event of retirement cannot be properly characterised as a material change in circumstances.
It is a consistent position that a husband's obligation to maintain the ex-wife continues beyond his retirement, the judge said.
Instead, the court should focus on whether the husband's retirement, when considered together with his overall financial circumstances, constitute a material change in circumstances that makes him incapable of paying maintenance.
Justice Pang said the evidence showed that Mr Moey owed five properties in Malaysia, four insurance policies valued at about S$121,500 in total, and two investment accounts with a total balance of about S$92,300.
Mr Moey had also received a sum of about S$327,380 in withdrawn funds from his Central Provident Fund accounts in October 2024 when he renounced his Singapore permanent residency in order to return to Malaysia after retiring.
Recent balances in his bank account statements also showed that he would have about S$378,750 in savings in late 2024 or early 2025. In the four years before his retirement, he was earning an average of S$246,000 a year.
His monthly living expenses were about 6,694 ringgit (S$2,182), with monthly mortgage payments amounting to 9,200 to 9,400 ringgit monthly.
Justice Pang found that this financial information showed that Mr Moey had enough alternative financial resources to continue paying maintenance to his ex-wife.
Mr Moey had submitted that it would be "unreasonable" for the court to punish him for leading a frugal lifestyle since the divorce and for working past retirement age to save up as much as possible, but the judge said that it was neither "punitive" or "unreasonable".
This is because a husband is obliged to maintain his former wife beyond his retirement and up to the former wife's remarriage, or until either one of them dies.
Justice Pang said that a clean break was "obviously desirable" in this case and that Mr Moey has repeatedly defaulted on his maintenance obligations, requiring his ex-wife to commence applications to enforce them.
However, Ms Leong failed to disclose certain details such as a loan she had purportedly received. The judge drew an adverse inference against her that she had undisclosed assets and was in a better financial position than she made herself out to be.
Because of this, he reduced the figure he used to calculate the lump-sum maintenance and rescinded Mr Moey's obligation to pay 95 per cent of his ex-wife's hospital and surgical bills.
Continue reading...