Following a 24‑year marriage without children, the primary issue at trial was spousal support after separation and equalization of property.
The respondent sought significant retroactive and ongoing support based on disability and medical expenses, while the applicant argued he should not pay ongoing support after retirement and relied on the principle against double recovery from pension income.
The court awarded retroactive and interim support largely within the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and imputed employment income to the applicant for one additional year due to a retirement decision made shortly before trial.
After June 2016, the court declined to order further support, holding that the respondent had not established an exception to the rule against “double dipping” articulated in Boston v. Boston.
The court also granted a divorce and required the applicant to maintain life insurance to secure the temporary support obligation.
