Mason v. Mason

180 Vt. 98 (2006) · Supreme Court of Vermont · June 16, 2006

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed an order enforcing a divorce decree that required the wife to transfer an additional 8,033 shares of stock to the husband. The court held that the husband’s entitlement to the stock split vested when the shares were marital property and subject to the parties’ stipulation, even though the husband was not the shareholder of record. The additional shares enforced, rather than modified, the original property division.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Skoglund, J.; Allen; Burgess; Dooley; Johnson; Reiber; Skoglund
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
June 16, 2006
Procedural posture
Wife appealed a family court order enforcing the parties' final divorce decree by requiring her to transfer an additional 8,033 shares of stock to husband.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Vermont reviews the family court's factual findings for clear error and upholds its conclusions if supported by those findings. It may affirm on any legal theory supported by the record.
Precedential value
Published Vermont Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Wife v. Husband
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

family law proceduredissolution of marriageequitable distributioncontract interpretationremedies

Practice areas

family lawcontractsremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether enforcement of the divorce decree required wife to transfer to husband the additional shares generated by a stock split for which the marital stock was eligible before the parties signed the stipulation and before entry of the decree.
  2. Whether awarding the additional shares constituted an impermissible modification of the parties' property division rather than enforcement of the existing decree.

Holdings

  1. Because the entitlement to the stock split vested while the shares were marital property and before the parties signed the stipulation and the divorce became final, the shares allocated to husband carried with them the entitlement to the additional stock generated by the split.
  2. The family court's award of the additional 8,033 shares enforced, rather than modified, the parties' original allocation of marital property.

Key quotations

While husband was not a shareholder of record (and did not receive notice of the split for this reason), the stock was still marital property as of this date, and husband gained an entitlement to the split as part of the marital property. (180 Vt. at 102)
Therefore, in awarding the additional 8,033 shares to husband, the family court did not modify the parties’ allocation of the marital property, but simply enforced it. (180 Vt. at 103)

Factual background

The parties' divorce stipulation sought to divide 48,200 shares of Union Bank stock, with wife transferring 16,066 shares to husband immediately. Before signing the stipulation and before entry of the divorce decree, wife knew that the stock would undergo a three-for-two split and that shareholders of record as of July 26, 2003, would receive the additional shares, but she did not disclose that information to husband. The split occurred after the decree, and husband received only the original number of post-split shares, giving him approximately one-fifth rather than one-third of the divided stock. The family court ordered wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares.

Procedural history

The parties entered into a divorce stipulation dividing marital property, including 16,066 shares of stock to be transferred from wife to husband. The family court incorporated the stipulation into the final divorce decree. After a three-for-two stock split occurred, husband sought additional shares; although he initially moved for relief from judgment based on alleged fraudulent concealment, he withdrew that motion and sought enforcement of the decree instead. The family court ordered wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares, and the Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…