It remains to be determined whether the Respondent here is entitled to double recovery and in this respect, it is essential to review the evidence in light of Boston v. Boston and Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn. These cases dealt with payor spouses whose sole source of income following equalization was a pension for which the payee spouse had been compensated. The principle of logic that a payee spouse should not be able to derive maintenance income from an asset for which she has been compensated is clear. It is equally clear, however, there are exceptions.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.