Are stock options that were granted 6 years before the marriage considered separate property in CA?
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
Are stock options that were granted 6 years before the marriage considered separate property in CA?
I was granted a bunch of options in 2001 that vested over the next 8 years. I was married in 2006. I am now going thru a divorce. 2 years of vesting occurred during my marriage, but i did not exercise ANY options while married.Are they still considered separate property? They were earned well before I ever met my wife.I did receive another grant in 2008 that vested over 4 years, but the 1st vesting year happened 7 days after she filed for divorce, will she be able to claim any of those?
Asked on May 30, 2009 under Family Law, California
Answers:
B. B., Member, New Jersey Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 15 years ago | Contributor
This gets into technical details of marital property in California, where I'm not licensed. There are differences in these details, and they can be important. So you need to have the paperwork in order, and let a qualified attorney in your area review it, to give you a reliable opinion on what will happen with your stock options. One place to find a lawyer is our website, http://attorneypages.com
I'm also working without any other facts of the case, and that might also have something to do with the answer. But I'd say with reasonable certainty that the options that vested before marriage should be separate property.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.