In a Decision – M.G. v. S.M.,, (a "Reported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s decision that the stock was subject to equitable distribution.
The question presented was whether the portion of restricted stock transferred to him by his employer, which vested after the date of the complaint, was subject to equitable distribution. When the parties divorced, plaintiff had been granted eight stock awards of which only three had fully vested. The rest were due to vest post-complaint on a rolling basis. Plaintiff conceded defendant was entitled to share the stock awards that had already vested.
The trial judge found the award of the stock, not the vesting of the award, created a marital asset whose value was uncertain and the award was made in recognition of plaintiff's past job performance. Plaintiff argued the vesting of the award depended on future job performance and thus, was not a marital asset.
The Appellate Division determined that post-complaint efforts were necessary to cause the stock to become payable and the language of the employer's stock plan showed that more was needed than mere continued employment. The analytical framework is not when the stock was received, but rather, the efforts required for it to vest.