I keep seeing this argument made and I don't buy it.

Certainly the sums of both cases are not exactly $2.7M. Those are just rounded numbers. And certainly there is some very specific list of expenses somewhere justifying that request.

Plus, if her husband owes that debt isn't it reasonable to surmise he owes others?

Do you really think she would take the specific amount her husband owes in an unrelated case and the demand that exact amount from an unaffiliated party in an unrelated case? This is nonsense. Coincidental indeed and not even a very strong coincidence. It's rounding.