Author’s Note: This article is a new 2026 synthesis and update built upon the analytical framework developed in articles entitled Employee Stock Options and Divorce (2000), Stock Options as Income (2001), and later materials concerning settlement and drafting regarding complex employment-based investments. It is not a compilation of those earlier articles. The terminology, case law, tax guidance, and practical recommendations have been revised to address the modern equity-compensation landscape.

---

Executive Summary

Equity compensation has changed dramatically since stock options first became a recurring issue in matrimonial litigation. Today, executive and technology-sector compensation commonly includes restricted stock units (RSUs), performance stock units (PSUs), nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, phantom equity, carried interests, profits interests, private-company shares, sweet equity, and other instruments whose economic value may depend on continued employment, performance conditions, liquidity events or future corporate transactions.

The central proposition nevertheless remains familiar: the label placed on an award by an employer does not answer the matrimonial question. The practitioner must determine what the award is, why it was granted, what conditions attach to it, when the employee’s rights were earned, when those rights become enforceable, whether the award can be transferred, and how its economic benefit will ultimately be taxed. Courts increasingly focus on the purpose of the grant rather than on vesting alone.

Across the United States, the dominant modern approach treats at least some contingent or unvested equity as divisible when it is attributable to marital labor. California’s Hug and Nelson decisions, New York’s DeJesus decision, Massachusetts’ Baccanti decision, Colorado’s Miller/Balanson line, New Jersey’s Pascale and M.G. decisions, and Arizona’s Brebaugh decision illustrate variants of this purpose-and-time analysis. A minority of jurisdictions, often because of statutory definitions of property, remain more restrictive.

The most important practical development is the migration from conventional stock options to RSUs and bespoke private-company equity. That migration may impact the application of a single coverture fraction. In 2025, for example, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Suwwan De Felipe v. El-Youssef Suwwan declined to force the Baccanti stock-option formula onto Fidelity nonvoting common shares whose economics differed materially from conventional options.[1] The lesson is broader than Massachusetts: understand the instrument before selecting the formula.

I. From Stock Options to Modern Equity Compensation

The stock option remains conceptually simple. It gives the holder the right, but generally not the obligation, to acquire shares at a specified exercise or strike price during a defined period. If the market value exceeds the strike price, the option has intrinsic value. If it does not, the option may be ‘underwater’ even though it retains time value. That distinction historically drove difficult valuation questions.

Modern compensation packages are broader. An RSU is ordinarily a contractual promise to deliver stock or cash after specified vesting conditions are satisfied. Unlike an option, an RSU normally has no strike price. Restricted stock generally involves issued shares subject to forfeiture or transfer restrictions. A PSU adds performance metrics to time-based vesting. Stock appreciation rights can deliver the economic spread without requiring the employee to purchase shares. Phantom stock is a contractual payment tied to equity value without actual ownership. Private-company programs may combine capital interests, profits interests, repurchase rights, loans, distribution rights and vesting restrictions.

These differences are not semantic. They affect whether the employee presently owns property, whether value exists before vesting, whether the nonemployee spouse can receive the instrument directly, whether a time-rule formula is economically sensible, and whether a deferred distribution method is preferable to present valuation.

II. The Threshold Inquiry: Property, Expectancy or Compensation?

A sound analysis separates three questions that are too often collapsed: (1) does the employee possess a legally cognizable right; (2) if so, what portion of that right was earned during the marital and therefore marital or community property; and (3) how should that marital portion be valued or distributed? Vesting is relevant to each question, but it is not universally dispositive.

A. The majority trend: contingent rights may still be property

Many jurisdictions reason by analogy to pensions and other deferred compensation. A contingent right earned through marital labor may constitute property even though payment depends upon future employment or another contingency. Arkansas recognized value in restrictive stock options in Richardson v. Richardson, 280 Ark. 498, 659 S.W.2d 510 (1983). Maryland followed a similar path in Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122, 494 A.2d 721 (1985), and later clarified the treatment of unvested options in Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 810 A.2d 1 (2002). Missouri treated contingent options granted during marriage as marital property in Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984), an approach later discussed in Warner v. Warner, 45 S.W.3d 884 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

New Mexico’s Garcia v. Mayer, 122 N.M. 57, 920 P.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1996), treated unvested options as a valuable contingent benefit and allocated the community portion. Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin and other jurisdictions likewise developed methods for apportioning equity rights that straddle the marital boundary.

B. The restrictive approach

Not every state defines divisible property as broadly. Indiana’s Hann v. Hann, 655 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), applied Indiana’s statutory framework to exclude options that were not exercisable at the relevant valuation date. North Carolina’s Hall v. Hall, 88 N.C. App. 297, 363 S.E.2d 189 (1987), and older Oklahoma authority are frequently cited with the minority line. These decisions demonstrate why a national practitioner cannot assume that an unvested award will be treated identically from state to state.

III. Purpose of the Grant: The Most Important Fact

The modern cases increasingly ask why the employer granted the award. Equity can compensate for past services, reward present performance, induce an employee to accept employment, retain the employee for future service, motivate future performance, or serve several purposes at once. The characterization of the grant should follow its economic purpose rather than a simplistic grant-date or vesting-date rule.

The best evidence ordinarily includes the plan document, award agreement, compensation committee materials, proxy disclosures, employer communications, offer letters, annual compensation statements, performance metrics, vesting schedules, forfeiture provisions, clawback policies and testimony from compensation personnel. A generic description of an award as a ‘retention incentive’ should not substitute for evidence of why the particular award was made.

Where an award compensates entirely for past marital services, later vesting may simply postpone enjoyment of an already-earned marital benefit. Where the award is solely an incentive for post-marital services, the argument for separate treatment is far stronger.

Mixed-purpose awards (which appear to be the most common) call for apportionment and weighs in favor of distribution by way of a time-rule formula.

IV. The Principal Allocation Formulas

A. California: Hug and Nelson

California developed two influential time-rule approaches. In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. App. 3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984), approved an allocation tied to the employee’s service from commencement of employment to the first exercisability date where the options were viewed substantially as compensation for past service. In re Marriage of Nelson, 177 Cal. App. 3d 150, 222 Cal. Rptr. 790 (1986), approved a grant-to-vesting formulation where the options were principally intended to encourage future performance and continued employment. Critically, Nelson reiterated Hug’s warning that no single formula fits every case.

A commonly expressed Nelson-style fraction is:

Months from grant to separation ÷ months from grant to vesting × units subject to the tranche.

B. New York: DeJesus and the purpose-driven time rule

In DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 N.Y.2d 643, 687 N.E.2d 1319, 665 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1997), New York’s Court of Appeals held that portions of unvested stock-option plans can constitute marital property. The court emphasized the reason for the grant and adopted a flexible analysis capable of distinguishing compensation for past services from incentives for future services. DeJesus remains a central New York authority for deferred equity and is now routinely invoked in disputes involving RSUs as well as conventional options.

C. Massachusetts: Baccanti and the modified time rule

Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787, 752 N.E.2d 718 (2001), held that unvested options may be included in the marital estate and placed the burden on the party seeking exclusion to establish that the options were given for future services to be performed after dissolution and that the nonemployee spouse did not contribute to the employee spouse’s ability to acquire them. When apportionment is equitable, Baccanti endorsed a modified time rule comparing the period the employee owned the options before dissolution with the period from grant to vesting.

Massachusetts has since cautioned against converting Baccanti into an automatic rule for every form of equity. In Suwwan De Felipe v. El-Youssef Suwwan, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 158 (2025), the Appeals Court affirmed a fifty-percent division of certain Fidelity nonvoting common shares and related investor units without mechanically applying Baccanti. The instruments generated substantial distributions even while unvested and represented an actual equity purchase. Their economics differed from options whose value remained entirely contingent. The decision is an important 2025 reminder that the instrument’s function and economic rights control the analysis.

D. Colorado: Miller and Balanson

Colorado’s cases distinguish the existence of property from the allocation of marital value. In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996), addressed stock options and restricted shares and emphasized the employee’s enforceable rights. In re Marriage of Balanson, 25 P.3d 28 (Colo. 2001), likewise focused on whether an enforceable contractual right existed. Colorado decisions permit time-rule apportionment where appropriate but caution that an unenforceable expectancy may fall outside divisible property.

E. Arizona: Brebaugh

Brebaugh v. Deane, 211 Ariz. 95, 118 P.3d 43 (Ct. App. 2005), expressly recognized that the purpose of the grant is central to the community/separate characterization of unvested options. Arizona’s approach illustrates the broader trend away from treating vesting as a talisman and toward identifying the services or objectives for which the employer conferred the award.

V. New Jersey: From Callahan to M.G.

New Jersey has been an important jurisdiction in the development of stock-option law. Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N.J. Super. 325 (Ch. Div. 1976), held that options acquired during marriage were subject to equitable distribution notwithstanding restrictions and contingencies. The court’s use of a constructive trust became the foundation for what practitioners often call a ‘Callahan trust’: the employee spouse retains legal title but holds the nonemployee spouse’s allocated portion subject to fiduciary obligations and future exercise or distribution instructions.

Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (1995), rejected a purely mechanical focus on the date an option was granted. Options awarded after the divorce complaint could be distributable when attributable to efforts expended during the marriage. The essential inquiry is whether the asset was acquired as a result of marital efforts.

Robertson v. Robertson, 381 N.J. Super. 199 (App. Div. 2005), demonstrates the other side of that principle. Options granted shortly before the complaint as an inducement to accept new employment, with a multi-year vesting schedule tied to future service, were held exempt from equitable distribution on the facts presented. The timing of the grant did not transform compensation for future employment into marital property.

M.G. v. S.M., 457 N.J. Super. 286 (App. Div. 2018), modernized the analysis for stock awards that vest after the complaint. The Appellate Division recognized a rebuttable presumption that awards made during the marriage but vesting after the complaint are subject to equitable distribution when they compensate for marital efforts. The party seeking exclusion must establish the extent to which the award is attributable to future, post-complaint services. The relevant part of the Court’s decision reads as follows:

Where the award is made during the marriage, but vests following the date of complaint, there is a rebuttable presumption the award is subject to equitable distribution unless there is a material dispute of fact regarding whether the stock, either in whole or in part, is for future performance. The party seeking to exclude such assets from equitable distribution on such grounds bears the burden to prove the stock award was made for services performed outside of the marriage. That party must adduce objective evidence to prove the employer intended the stock to vest for future services and not as a form of deferred compensation attributable to the award date. Such objective evidence should include, but is not limited to, the following: testimony from the employed spouse; testimony of the employer’s representative; the stock plan; any employer correspondence to the employed spouse regarding the award; and the employed spouse’s stock plan statements from commencement of the award and nearest the date of complaint, along with the vesting schedule.

M.G. v. S.M., 457 N.J. Super. at 302.

Although M.G. would appear to align New Jersey with the national purpose-of-the-grant approach, this writer believes that the Appellate Court erred as to the rebuttable presumption. When an award of unvested stock is made during the marriage that requires post-marital employment effort and vests after the marriage has ended, there should be a rebuttable presumption that it is non-marital and place the burden on the party asserting that it is martial to show otherwise. Post-marital employment needed to earn unvested stock is per se non-marital. Therefore, the rebuttable presumption should recognize that fact.

VI. Restricted Stock and Performance Awards

The migration from options to RSUs changes the economic analysis. An option may have no intrinsic value until the stock price exceeds the strike price. An RSU ordinarily delivers a share or cash equivalent if vesting conditions are satisfied; absent forfeiture, its value tracks the underlying stock without an exercise-price hurdle. This makes present valuation conceptually easier in some cases but does not eliminate forfeiture, tax, market and employment risks.

Time-based RSUs often fit comfortably within a grant-to-vesting coverture fraction when the evidence shows a mixed marital/post-marital service purpose. Performance-based RSUs are more difficult because vesting may depend on revenue, total shareholder return, EBITDA, individual metrics or relative performance over a multi-year cycle. A formula based solely on elapsed time may overstate or understate the marital contribution.

Restricted stock presents another distinction. If actual shares are issued at grant, the employee may possess voting, dividend or distribution rights before restrictions lapse. That can make an ‘unvested equals no present value’ assumption incorrect. The 2025 Suwwan De Felipe decision is especially useful by analogy because it focuses on the economic rights that exist before formal vesting.

VII. Valuation: Present Value Versus Deferred Distribution

A. Present valuation

Present valuation severs the parties’ financial relationship and can facilitate an offset against other property. For publicly traded options, valuation may employ option-pricing methodologies such as Black-Scholes or lattice models, adjusted as appropriate for vesting, forfeiture, nontransferability, expected life, volatility and other restrictions. For RSUs, valuation may begin with market price but must account for vesting probability, performance conditions, taxes and restrictions.

The danger is false precision. Employee awards are not identical to freely tradable exchange-listed securities. An employee may be unable to hedge, transfer or exercise freely; blackout periods and insider-trading policies may apply; employment termination may accelerate forfeiture; and private-company equity may have no observable market.

B. Deferred distribution

Deferred distribution avoids forcing a speculative present value. The employee retains legal title and the nonemployee spouse receives an agreed percentage if, as and when the benefit is realized. Callahan is an early example. Baccanti likewise recognized that where present valuation is uncertain or impractical, an if-and-when-received distribution may be preferable. Suwwan De Felipe reaffirmed that proposition for complex private-company securities in 2025.

Deferred distribution, however, creates continuing entanglement. A carefully drafted order or agreement (e.g., Callahan Trust) must address notice, exercise rights, vesting, forfeiture, termination, replacement awards, mergers, splits, tender offers, dividends, withholding, tax reporting, blackout periods, clawbacks, employer restrictions, death, disability and dispute resolution.

VIII. Taxation and Transfer Mechanics

Tax treatment must be integrated into the property analysis. Under I.R.C. § 1041, transfers of property between spouses or incident to divorce are generally nonrecognition events, with carryover basis principles. Equity compensation adds special rules because the award may represent compensation income rather than appreciated capital property.

Revenue Ruling 2002-22 addressed the transfer incident to divorce of nonstatutory stock options and certain nonqualified deferred-compensation rights. In the circumstances described by the ruling, the employee does not recognize income merely upon the divorce-related transfer; the nonemployee former spouse generally recognizes the compensation income when exercising the transferred nonstatutory option. Revenue Ruling 2004-60 addresses employment-tax withholding consequences and makes clear that employment-tax consequences may remain associated with the employee’s services even where income-tax inclusion falls on the nonemployee spouse.

RSU’s and similar equity awards require separate consideration because the taxable event generally occurs when the award vests, at which time the recipient recognizes compensation income. The divorce settlement agreement should not only address the value of an RSU award but also the allocation of the future tax liability associated with the compensation income.

Incentive stock options require separate care. Statutory-option rules restrict transferability and generally cause loss of favorable ISO treatment if the option itself is transferred incident to divorce since many plans prohibit direct assignment in any event. Practitioners should therefore coordinate the matrimonial instrument with the plan, employer, broker and tax advisor rather than assuming that a divorce decree can compel the employer to re-register the award.

The settlement should allocate not merely ‘taxes’ in the abstract but the specific burdens: ordinary income tax, federal and state withholding, FICA/Medicare where applicable, capital gain or loss after exercise or settlement, estimated-tax consequences, and any mismatch between the employee’s W-2 reporting and the former spouse’s economic entitlement.

IX. Equity Compensation as Income for Alimony and Child Support

The second life of equity compensation in matrimonial law is as income. The earlier cases involving exercised options established a proposition that remains broadly sound: realized equity compensation can constitute income for support even when the compensation is irregular. Delaware’s Kenton v. Kenton, 571 A.2d 778 (Del. 1990), Colorado’s In re Marriage of Campbell, 905 P.2d 19 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995), and decisions from Tennessee and other states treated option gains as compensation or bonus-like income for support purposes.

The harder question is when and how to recognize equity income. Possible measurement dates include grant, vesting, exercise, settlement and sale. For an RSU, vesting and settlement frequently coincide and generate W-2 compensation. For an option, exercise may generate ordinary compensation income for a nonqualified option, while a later sale creates a separate capital transaction. Support calculations should avoid counting the same economic increment twice.

Recurring grants may also justify an income projection. A multi-year history can establish that equity is an ordinary component of total compensation, not an extraordinary windfall. Yet projecting future grants is different from counting awards already granted. The court should consider the employer’s grant history, compensation structure, employee level, performance, market conditions and evidence that the program will continue.

X. Double Counting or ‘Double Dipping’

The recurring fairness problem is whether the same equity may first be divided as property and later counted again as income from which support is paid. The answer varies by jurisdiction and by what, precisely, is being counted. Courts have distinguished the corpus of a distributed asset from income or growth generated after distribution, and have distinguished the marital portion of an award from the post-marital portion excluded from property division.

Massachusetts provides a useful illustration. Baccanti addressed property allocation. Wooters v. Wooters, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 839, 910 N.E.2d 333 (2009), addressed option-related income under an alimony agreement. Ludwig v. Lamee-Ludwig, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 74 N.E.3d 921 (2017), held that the portion of unvested options excluded from the marital estate under Baccanti could be considered income for alimony without impermissibly double counting the portion already allocated as property.

The drafting implication is critical. A settlement should specify whether future vesting, exercise proceeds, dividends and appreciation attributable to distributed equity are included or excluded from income for support purposes. Silence invites a later dispute. Divorce agreements that expressly address the definition of income and whether or not stock-based compensation is includable in the support calculus, however, should be enforced by the courts. (See Heller-Loren v. Apuzzio, 371 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. 2004))

XI. Private-Company Equity, Sweet Equity, Start-Ups and Liquidity Events

Private-company equity magnifies every traditional problem. There may be no public market, no reliable current share price, broad repurchase rights, transfer prohibitions, company loans, rights of first refusal, drag-along provisions, liquidation preferences, dilution risk and multiple classes of securities. The apparent number of ‘shares’ says little without the capitalization table and governing documents.

Discovery should include the capitalization table, equity incentive plan, individual grant agreements, shareholder or operating agreement, subscription documents, 409A valuations, tender-offer materials, financing-round documents, waterfall analyses, repurchase provisions, loan documents, distribution history and communications concerning anticipated liquidity. Where the employee has profits interests or carried interests, partnership and tax documents may be as important as conventional compensation records.

A future IPO, sale or tender offer should be addressed expressly. Replacement securities should ordinarily follow the same marital percentage unless the replacement contains demonstrably new consideration for post-marital services. Otherwise, a change in corporate form can inadvertently destroy the nonemployee spouse’s negotiated economic interest.

XII. Discovery: What the Matrimonial Lawyer Should Obtain

• All equity incentive plans and amendments in effect during the relevant period.
• Every grant, award, subscription and exercise agreement, including cancelled or replaced awards.
• Complete vesting schedules by tranche, including performance conditions.
• Annual compensation statements and employer equity portals showing grant, vest, exercise and sale history.
• Offer letters, promotion letters and compensation committee communications describing the purpose of awards.
• W-2s, pay statements, Forms 3921/3922 where applicable, brokerage statements and transaction confirmations.
• Proxy statements and public compensation disclosures for senior executives.
• Employer policies governing transfer, blackout periods, clawbacks, termination, retirement, death and disability.
• For private companies: cap tables, 409A valuations, financing documents, tender materials, shareholder/operating agreements and repurchase rights.
• Documents concerning substitute or replacement awards following a merger, acquisition, change in control or new employment.

XIII. Drafting the Settlement: A Modern Callahan Framework

The original Callahan concept remains powerful because many plans still prohibit direct transfer. But a modern constructive-trust provision must do more than state a percentage. It should identify each grant and tranche, state the allocation formula, define the marital fraction, specify the controlling valuation or distribution date, and establish enforceable information and notice rights.

The nonemployee spouse’s exercise or sale instructions should be subject to the employer’s actual plan restrictions, securities laws and blackout periods. The employee should have an affirmative duty to transmit notices of vesting, expiration, tender offers, mergers, changes in control, termination and clawback events. The agreement should prohibit intentional action designed to defeat the other spouse’s interest while recognizing that ordinary employment termination, standing alone, is not necessarily a breach.

Tax provisions should use actual tax consequences where practicable rather than an arbitrary fixed marginal rate. If a fixed withholding percentage is used for administrative convenience, the agreement should provide a true-up mechanism based on actual tax reporting. Replacement awards and make-whole payments should be traced to the forfeited marital award so that form does not defeat substance.

XIV. A Representative Jurisdictional Survey

Jurisdiction	Leading Authority	General Approach	Practice Point
Arizona	Brebaugh v. Deane, 211 Ariz. 95, 118 P.3d 43 (Ct. App. 2005)	Purpose of grant controls community/separate allocation of unvested options.	Develop evidence of past-service versus future-service purpose.
Arkansas	Richardson v. Richardson, 280 Ark. 498, 659 S.W.2d 510 (1983)	Restrictive options acquired during marriage recognized as marital property.	Contingency does not necessarily eliminate property status.
California	In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. App. 3d 780 (1984); Nelson, 177 Cal. App. 3d 150 (1986)	Flexible time rules; formula depends on purpose of grant.	Do not apply Hug or Nelson mechanically.
Colorado	In re Marriage of Miller, 915 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1996); Balanson, 25 P.3d 28 (Colo. 2001)	Focus on enforceable rights, then marital allocation; time rule may be used.	Separate ‘is it property?’ from ‘what portion is marital?’
Delaware	Kenton v. Kenton, 571 A.2d 778 (Del. 1990)	Exercised options may be included as income for child support.	Distinguish property allocation from realized compensation income.
Indiana	Hann v. Hann, 655 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)	Statutory framework historically restrictive as to nonexercisable options.	Confirm current statutory valuation-date rules before assuming division.
Maryland	Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122 (1985); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540 (2002)	Unvested/unexercised options can be addressed as marital property; deferred distribution available.	Draft around forfeiture and exercise contingencies.
Massachusetts	Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787 (2001); Suwwan De Felipe, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 158 (2025)	Unvested equity can be marital; modified time rule is important but not universal.	Analyze the instrument’s actual economics before selecting Baccanti.
Missouri	Smith v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984); Warner, 45 S.W.3d 884 (2001)	Contingent options granted during marriage may be marital.	Deferred division may be used where present severance is impractical.
New Jersey	Callahan, 142 N.J. Super. 325 (1976); Pascale, 140 N.J. 583 (1995); M.G., 457 N.J. Super. 286 (2018)	Purpose and marital efforts control; post-complaint vesting/grant timing is not alone dispositive.	Use rebuttable-presumption/purpose analysis and detailed constructive-trust drafting.
New Mexico	Garcia v. Mayer, 122 N.M. 57, 920 P.2d 522 (Ct. App. 1996)	Unvested options may be valuable contingent community property.	Time-rule allocation can separate marital from post-marital labor.
New York	DeJesus v. DeJesus, 90 N.Y.2d 643 (1997)	Purpose-driven coverture analysis for unvested options/deferred awards.	Identify whether award rewards past services, future services, or both.
North Carolina	Hall v. Hall, 88 N.C. App. 297, 363 S.E.2d 189 (1987)	Older authority is comparatively restrictive concerning unvested options.	Check statutory definition and current case law before relying on majority rule.
Oregon	In re Marriage of Powell, 147 Or. App. 17, 934 P.2d 612 (1997)	Time-rule concepts used for options spanning marital and post-marital periods.	Match fraction to purpose and vesting structure.
Washington	Stachofsky v. Stachofsky, 90 Wn. App. 135, 951 P.2d 346 (1998)	Property character and equitable distribution principles applied to stock-related interests.	Washington courts have broad distribution authority; characterization remains relevant.
Wisconsin	In re Marriage of Chen, 142 Wis. 2d 7, 416 N.W.2d 661 (Ct. App. 1987)	Approved time-rule treatment of non-accrued options.	Hug-type reasoning remains influential.

XV. Practical Analytical Protocol

1. Identify the instrument. Obtain the plan and individual award documents before characterizing anything.
2. Determine the legal right. Is the award issued, promised, contingent, forfeitable, transferable or merely discretionary?
3. Determine the purpose of the grant. Past service, present performance, future retention, future performance, recruitment, or mixed purpose?
4. Map every date. Marriage, separation/complaint, grant, vesting tranches, performance period, exercise, expiration, settlement and sale.
5. Choose the allocation methodology only after understanding purpose. A formula is a tool, not a rule of nature.
6. Choose present valuation or deferred distribution based on reliability of valuation, liquidity, risk and transfer restrictions.
7. Model taxes before fixing the net division.
8. Analyze support separately and guard against double counting.
9. Draft for corporate events, replacement awards, forfeiture, clawbacks and information rights.
10. Use a financial expert when the economics, tax consequences or valuation are not transparent.

XVI. Conclusion

The essential lesson developed in the early stock-option cases remains sound: equity compensation cannot be classified by label alone. What began as a question about whether an unvested option was ‘property’ has become a broader inquiry into contractual rights, compensation design, marital labor, future service, taxation and liquidity.

The most durable national principle is functional. Determine why the award exists, how and when it was earned and what economic rights it confers. Then select an allocation and distribution method that captures the marital contribution without appropriating compensation earned solely after the marital partnership ended. Hug, Nelson, DeJesus, Baccanti, Miller, Balanson, Pascale, M.G. and Brebaugh use different doctrinal language, but each contributes to that functional analysis.

For practitioners, the drafting burden has increased rather than diminished. RSUs, performance awards and private-company instruments often contain more contingencies and corporate restrictions than the conventional options that generated the first wave of reported decisions. A settlement that merely awards ‘50% of the stock options’ is no longer adequate. The agreement must identify the asset, define the marital fraction, allocate risk and tax, establish information rights, and anticipate the corporate events that can change the form of the award before it is realized.

Equity compensation remains both an asset and, in appropriate circumstances, a source of income. The two concepts must be coordinated, not confused. Avoid the double-dip. The objective is the same as in all equitable-distribution analysis: to recognize the fruits of the marital partnership while leaving each former spouse with a fair and administrable economic result after that partnership has ended.

Editorial note: This national survey is intended as a practitioner article, not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific research. Because state statutes and case law can change and unpublished decisions may affect local practice, counsel should update the authorities in the controlling jurisdiction before relying on this article.

---

[1] “Trial court did not err by declining to apply modified time rule formula to determine how many shares of nonvoting common stock to include in marital estate, of the 20,000 shares that husband bought from his employer three months after filing for divorce; although husband’s accountant calculated based on modified time rule formula that 12,216 of the shares were unvested, and therefore not subject to division, such formula was designed for the entirely contingent value of unvested stock options, and so the analysis did not consider that although the appreciation of the shares of nonvoting common stock could not be realized until they were vested, and could thus be transferred or sold, there was no delay in receiving significant dividends and distributions from the nonvoting common stock.” De Felipe v. Suwwan, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 158, 271 N.E.3d 1212 (2025)

---

Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. is Of Counsel and a member of the Family Law Practice Group at A.Y. Strauss, LLC, with offices in Livingston, Hackensack and New York. Special thanks to Jack Tawil, CPA of DLA, LLC for his assistance with this article.