Family Law
Family Law News 2018, Issue 1, Volume 40, No. 1
Content
- The Yelp Decision: a Follow-Up to My Article on Attorneys and On-Line Reviews
- It is time for Hug/Nelson's Hegemony Over the Division of Stock Options to End?
- Family Law News Editorial Team
- Pointers and Pitfalls in Family Law Set Asides
- The Duties and Responsibilities of Minor's Counsel Under Family Code Section 3042
- Message from the Editor
- Counties are Failing to Uniformly Implement the Elkins Task Force Recommendations for Cps Information and Report Sharing
- Support Under the Federal Immigration I-864 Affidavit of Support Versus California's Family Code and State Case Law: What Family Law Attorneys Should Know
- Technology Corner: True Confessions
- Family Law Section Executive Committee
- Proposed New Ethics Rules: What You Need to Know
- Legislative Liaisons and Designated Recipients of Legislation
- Table of Contents
- Message from the Chair
- Confronting the Fifth Amendment in Domestic Violence Restraining Order Cases: a Story of Competing Interests
It is time for Hug/Nelson’s Hegemony Over the Division of Stock Options to End?
James M. Crawford, Jr.
Jim Crawford is an employee benefits/ ERISA attorney who, for more than 30 years, has been serving as a consultant and expert witness for California family law practitioners regarding the characterization, apportionment and division of retirement plans and other forms of deferred compensation. He may be reached at jcrawford@ ERISAsite.com.
In In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. App. 3d 780 (1984) (hereafter, "Hug"), the First District was asked to address what it referred to as an issue of "first impression," i.e., how to apportion unvested stock options that are granted during marriage before separation and that vest after separation.1 The case arose because while the parties agreed the options should be apportioned according to "a time rule," 2 they disagreed as to how the rule should be applied.
As background, the time rule was originally developed as a means of apportioning retirement benefits to which a right is acquired over time.3 It basically holds that where there is a "substantial relationship" between the number of years of service and the amount of an employee benefit, the relative contributions of the community and separate estate to acquiring a right to that benefit can reasonably be determined based upon the amount of credited service contributed by each.4