2020 Ohio 4415
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Lauren (Wife) and Jeffrey (Husband) Anderson married in 2007; three minor children. Wife filed for divorce in Sept. 2018; final hearing June 14, 2019; decree entered Oct. 1, 2019.
- Husband received a compensation package that included 241 restricted stock units (RSUs) granted in Feb. 2019.
- The company’s documentation (introduced by Wife) showed the RSUs were part of 2018 compensation and vest in equal installments yearly from Feb. 2020 through Feb. 2023.
- Husband testified he did not understand the RSUs and offered no documentary evidence about plan conditions or forfeiture rules.
- Trial court classified all 241 RSUs as marital property, divided them equally, and imposed a constructive trust for Wife’s benefit until vesting; Husband must notify Wife when units vest and consult on exercise.
- Husband appealed, arguing (1) unvested RSUs are not marital property and (2) dividing all RSUs equally was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unvested RSUs granted during the marriage are marital property | Anderson (Wife): RSUs were granted as compensation for services during the marriage and thus are marital property | Husband: RSUs unvested at decree, not yet “owned,” so they are separate property and should not be divided | Court: RSUs granted as compensation for 2018 services are marital property despite being unvested at decree |
| Whether dividing all 241 RSUs equally was an abuse of discretion | Anderson (Wife): Equal division of marital assets is the starting point; equal split is appropriate here | Husband: Even if some are marital, dividing all units equally is inequitable because many units vest post-decree | Court: No abuse of discretion; equal division was reasonable in context of the overall property division |
Key Cases Cited
- Demo v. Demo, 101 Ohio App.3d 383 (12th Dist. 1995) (stock awards earned prior to marriage and not exercised with marital funds may be separate property)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 139 Ohio St.3d 275 (2014) (unvested retirement benefits earned during marriage may constitute marital property; unvested status alone does not negate value)
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (2003) (equal division is the starting point for marital asset division)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion: more than error of judgment)
- Briganti v. Briganti, 9 Ohio St.3d 220 (1984) (court reviews property division in light of totality of circumstances)