PROPERTY DIVISION – SEPARATE AND MARITAL – STOCK OPTIONS AND AWARDS – VESTING DATE AS CONTROLLING. In a simple and straightforward opinion on the classification of stock options and stock awards conferred on the wife as CEO of a large corporation known as SAIC, the Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeals erred in (apparently) using the vesting date of these options and awards as the sole determining factor in classifying them as separate property. On the contrary, the Supreme Court said in Schuman v. Schuman, ___ Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 26 VLW 670 (11/4/11), any stock option or stock award that an employee gets on a vesting date is, absolutely, awarded as payment for past work up to that date, and it just can’t be any other way. Q.E.D. Assuming that the Court of Appeals was saying that what you get by vesting on a date after separation is all yours and non-marital, and that the date is the only criterion the Court of Appeals used in classifying these assets, it simply was wrong. After all, the Supreme Court says, one need only look to the statute which added deferred compensation benefits to the equitable distribution legislation, §20-107.3(G)(1), because it made deferred compensation divisible “whether vested or non-vested.” The Court does say that the proper rule is found in a Court of Appeals opinion, Dietz v. Dietz, 17 Va. App. 203, 436 S.E.2d 463 (1993), holding, the Supreme Court tells us, that the legislative intent was for such assets to be treated uniformly, and that means in the same manner as is the marital share of pensions.
