Retrenched man, 67, applies to stop S$5,150 monthly spousal maintenance, S'pore court dismisses bid, converts it to S$364,800 lump-sum

A 67-year-old former managing director failed in an attempt to rescind his spousal maintenance obligations.

Moey Park Moon cited his retrenchment and advanced age as a contributing factor to a material change in circumstances.

His ex-wife, Leong Yim Ling, 65, argued against his claims, calling his retrenchment from Aug 31, 2024, "a short period of unemployment" which would be "insufficient to constitute a material change in circumstance".

In a judgment made available on Mar. 17, the High Court dismissed Moey's application but converted the monthly maintenance payments to a lump-sum of S$364,800.

Justice Pang Khang Chau said: "This 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."

Original divorce settlement & prior bids

Moey married Leong in 1984, and the couple has a son born in 1994.

According to court documents seen by Mothership, Leong filed for divorce on Oct. 27, 2009, and the final judgment was granted on Feb. 27, 2013.

Leong's original divorce settlement included a spousal maintenance of S$4,000 per month from Jan. 1, 2013, S$300 for travel and various conditions for the payment of her medical bills.

Moey had filed applications in 2015 and 2018 to vary and substitute the spousal maintenance obligations; both bids were dismissed by a judge.

Retrenchment

The present application for a complete recission of Moey's spousal maintenance obligations was filed on Oct. 3, 2024.

Moey argued that his retrenchment led to the loss of his previous income.

He previously held roles as Managing Director of Marsh (Singapore), an insurance broking and risk consulting firm, and Senior Risk Engineer at HDI Global SE.

He was earning a monthly salary of around S$36,958.92 and S$17,465.75, respectively.

Moey lost his employment in August 2024 and now relies on his savings and investments.

According to Moey, he had extended his employment but was unable to re-employ him "for his own health and safety (as well as the company's insurance liability exposure)".

However, Leong said Moey had "intentionally failed to explain why alternative employment is not feasible".

Spousal maintenance not 'free meal ticket'

According to court documents, Moey acknowledged that he could meet the obligations for some time, but it would eventually be unsustainable.

"His known maintenance obligations would amount to at least $1,236,000 over the next 20 years, while his living expenses would amount to $494,326.15 over the same period."

Moey also urged the court to consider that Leong had not sought any form of employment and had alleged that she had sufficient funds for her own retirement.

Moey 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".

Ex-wife claimed medical conditions deteriorated

Leong opposed Moey's application, stating that the submissions had already been raised and dismissed in previous court proceedings.

She said that her medical conditions had deteriorated and that she had no retirement savings.

She argued that her lack of experience would render it impossible for her to obtain a decent-paying job.

She also claimed that her attention was focused on their son, who has Asperger's Syndrome.

She argued that she had devoted her entire life to caring for their son and had no choice but to continue being a homemaker.

Retirement not enough to rescind maintenance

The judge cited three propositions to justify his judgment.

Firstly, the condition in the original settlement was that Moey was obligated to "maintain his former wife" beyond his retirement and up to her remarriage or the death of either party.

Secondly, monthly maintenance could not be relieved by retirement.

Thirdly, the court will assess the parties' needs and assets and adjust the maintenance order so as to be fair for both parties.

The judge also said: "The prospect of a spouse's retirement would have already been borne in mind by any court making a maintenance order, as it is a certainty that no one would be employed for the whole of his life."

Court's inquiry to focus on retirement & overall financial circumstances

He said that the court's inquiry should focus on Moey's retirement in relation to his overall financial circumstances.

Moey owned five properties in Malaysia, four insurance policies valued at S$121,491.05 and two investment accounts valued at S$92,310.77.

After renouncing his Singapore permanent residency to move to Malaysia after his retirement, Moey received S$327,381.10 from his Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.

Bank statements showed at least S$378,749.68 in savings as of early 2025, and in the four years before retirement, Moey was earning S$246,000 a year on average.

Hence, the court found that Moey had alternative financial resources to continue paying S$5,150 per month to the plaintiff based on the base sum of S$4,000, S$300 for travel and S$850 for medical, dental, and optical expenses.

Court granted final lump-sum maintenance for 'clean break'

Both parties agreed that a lump-sum should be ordered if the court dismissed the application.

The judge said: "A clean break was obviously desirable in the present case, given the history of acrimony between the parties."

He also mentioned that Moey had defaulted on his maintenance obligations, and Leong had to commence four separate applications to enforce his obligations in the past.

However, Leong had also failed to disclose all her assets, including a loan she allegedly received and the source of funds for her credit card.

The judge drew an adverse inference that she was in a "better financial position than she made herself out to be".

Based on the evidence presented, the judge reduced the figure used to calculate the lump-sum maintenance order and rescinded Moey's obligation to pay 95 per cent of Leong's hospital and surgical bills.

The entirety of Moey's maintenance obligation was replaced by a sum of S$364,800, which the judge said "would not cripple the defendant financially".

Top photo from Canva