How a woman made her ex-husband pay for the lion’s share of her medical bills

A woman turned her ex-husband into her personal medical insurer of sorts as part of an unusual divorce settlement in 2013 which entitled her to be reimbursed for 95 per cent of her hospital bills.

Such a request, which is not common in today’s divorce cases, imposes an uncertain financial burden because if the wife is suddenly hospitalised for a prolonged illness, chalking up bills of $100,000, the husband would have to pay $95,000.

As there was no imposed limit, such payments could be a high recurring cost that would not be sustainable for many people, especially if they have to pay for all hospital charges without the help of healthcare insurance.

Even if the husband, 67, had voluntarily taken up hospitalisation insurance for the ex-wife to protect himself, the financial burden would not disappear because the premium for such policies would increase with age.

Fortunately for him, the wife, 65, has apparently never made any claims for hospitalisation. But she has tendered various claims through the years for outpatient treatment for reimbursements of 80 per cent of her bills.

In addition to her medical benefits, the husband, who used to earn about $37,000 a month as a managing director of a company, also has to pay $4,000 in monthly maintenance to his ex-wife.

The monthly sum was later increased to about $5,000 to include her outpatient medical, dental and travel expenses.

In 2019, the husband went to work for another company as a “senior risk engineer”, earning around $17,000 a month.

As he is now retired, the husband, who has since remarried, applied to the High Court to relieve him of his obligation to take care of his ex-wife after paying for her for some 13 years.

In March 2026, High Court Judge Pang Khang Chau did not approve the man’s request, but he converted the monthly alimony to a one-time payment of about $365,000.

In doing so, the judge took note of the retiree’s existing assets, which included five properties in Malaysia and cash and insurance policies worth over $500,000. The retiree also received a lump sum payment of about $330,000 from the CPF Board when he renounced his Singapore permanent residency to return to Malaysia after his retirement.

The award of the lump sum maintenance payment for the ex-wife is consistent with the common practice of giving estranged couples “a clean break” instead of continually fighting over money.

It was not disclosed what the ex-wife received from the share of their matrimonial assets, but in many recent cases, the courts would not award any maintenance to the spouses if they were awarded a sizeable share.

With the lump sum payment to the ex-wife, the court also ruled that the retiree would no longer need to foot her medical bills.

Justice Pang noted that the lump sum award would not “cripple” the retiree financially since he still had considerable assets after he stopped working. The judge disagreed with the retiree’s request for the lump sum payment to be just $30,000, or less than 10 per cent of the final award, because this would be tantamount to giving the ex-spouse a nominal maintenance.

Although the retiree has appealed against this ruling, the couple’s experience provides two compelling lessons that all couples should take note of.

Prudent to be self-sufficient

In a perfect world, ex-spouses who are awarded monthly maintenance will continue to receive such payments until they remarry or when either party dies.

The reality is far harsher as there have been many cases where maintenance just stops either because the ex-spouse making the payment is recalcitrant or simply because of financial woes.

Moreover, it is a tall order to expect retirees to continually support their ex-spouses based on terms that were made when they were still working, unless they have managed to accumulate sizeable wealth during the marriage.

This is why courts generally prefer to order lump sum payments or none at all if both spouses end up receiving shares of over $1 million during the split of their matrimonial assets.

It may seem like a good idea to put a medical claim clause in the divorce settlement so that future expenses are covered, but enforcing it could be another story altogether.

Those who rely on such clauses could end up in a financial bind if the other party simply defaults on the payment or, worse, becomes bankrupt.

Even the best-case scenarios would cost money because the wife in this case had to incur legal costs at least four times over the years just to uphold her right in the matrimonial dispute.

What this means is that it pays for non-working spouses to ensure that they are financially independent during their marriage, such as having adequate savings as well as healthcare insurance.

Even when the wife in this case had a medical claim entitlement, she was prudent enough to buy her own healthcare insurance to cover her future medical expenses.

Minimally, everyone should plan for retirement income, such as that offered by CPF Life, the national annuity scheme.

For instance, those reaching 55 who put up $440,800 for the enhance retirement sum in 2026 would stand to receive about $3,400 monthly after age 65.

If the wife in this case had such monthly payments from CPF Life, she would not need to worry about defaults or non-payment for the rest of her life because the payouts are backed by the Government.

Pays to be upfront with finances

The wife wanted her ex-husband to continue supporting her, but she was not upfront in disclosing her expenses as well as her own savings.

For instance, she claimed her monthly expenses came up to about $5,000, but the court noted that about $500 was for the couple’s son, 31, who is no longer eligible to demand any support from his father.

The court also noticed she had not disclosed all her bank accounts because she did not produce any bank statement to show how she had been paying for her own medical insurance.

She claimed she paid with “huge stacks of cash notes” at the insurance company, but Justice Pang found her “assertion to be inherently incredible” considering that the premiums amounted to close to $6,000.

The judge found it was “patently untrue” that she did not have undisclosed bank accounts because her own receipts for claiming outpatient treatments were paid with credit cards.

She claimed that she wholly depended on her alimony for her expenses and she had to borrow about $30,000 from an unknown person to pay her legal fees.

As the judge found that she was not upfront with her finances, he reduced her monthly maintenance to $3,800, and ordered the husband to pay her a lump sum of $364,800, amounting to eight years’ worth of alimony, to fulfil all his obligations.

The lesson here is that when it comes to retirement planning, it is always prudent to be self-sufficient so that you do not need to rely on other people to pay your bills.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Snag your LexLearn pass at Lawyer UP! (27 April) High-profile gaffes surrounding AI use offer cautionary tale