Schuman v. Schuman
717 S.E.2d 410
Va.2011Background
- Daniel and Mary Schuman married on June 26, 2004; Mary worked as SAIC VP and received deferred compensation including vesting stock, stock options, and a CEO award.
- Separation occurred August 24, 2007; Mary filed for divorce August 27, 2007.
- Trial court held stock awards were Mary’s separate property because some options were exercised with separate funds.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's result but relied on vesting date to determine marital vs. separate property.
- Daniel appealed arguing stock awards earned during marriage, not merely vesting date, should be marital property; the issue reached Virginia Supreme Court.
- Court held that stock awards are deferred compensation earned during the marriage and not controlled solely by vesting date; ordered remand for proper equitable distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Mary’s stock awards marital property despite vesting after separation? | Schuman: awards were earned during marriage and should be marital. | Schuman: vesting post-separation makes them Mary’s separate property. | Yes; stock awards are marital property. |
| What is the correct method to determine the marital share for deferred compensation like stock awards? | Schuman: apply pension-like method for marital portion. | Schuman: rely on vesting-based classifications as Court of Appeals did. | Treat deferred compensation like pensions; compute marital portion earned during marriage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Dietz, 17 Va.App. 203, 436 S.E.2d 463 (1993) (deferred compensation treated as pension-type asset when earned during marriage)
- Robinette v. Robinette, 10 Va.App. 480, 393 S.E.2d 629 (1990) (describing pensions as deferred compensation for services rendered)
- Ranney v. Ranney, 45 Va.App. 17, 608 S.E.2d 485 (2005) (deferred compensation earned during marriage treated as marital property)
- Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va.App. 287, 605 S.E.2d 268 (2004) (deferred compensation acquired during marriage treated as marital property)
- Shiembob v. Shiembob, 55 Va.App. 234, 685 S.E.2d 192 (2009) (illustrates vesting-based classification limitations under certain facts)