The court in Shepley adverted to the principles in Boston v. Boston[83] with respect to the conclusion that “double dipping” was inequitable. However, the court cited Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn,[84] for the proposition that in certain cases the rationale for avoiding double recovery is not applicable. In that case, the wife was in poor health and received only a modest equalization payment.
"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.