## Facts

- Jeffrey Mason (husband) and Susan Mason (wife) divorced in Vermont, and their principal marital asset was 48,200 shares of Union Bank stock held in wife’s name, worth about $1.5 million.
- While the parties negotiated a property stipulation, wife learned from her financial advisor that the bank was about to execute a three-for-two stock split (implemented as a stock dividend), meaning shareholders would receive one additional share for every two shares held.
- The split was based on a record date of July 26, 2003; because wife held 48,200 shares on that date, the shares would become 72,300 after the split.
- Wife’s advisor recommended using a specific number of shares (rather than a fraction) in the stipulation. Without telling husband about the impending split, wife negotiated a stipulation that husband would receive 16,066 shares—roughly one-third of 48,200.
- The stipulation required wife to transfer 16,066 shares to husband “immediately.” Wife signed on August 4, 2003; husband signed on August 6, 2003; and the family court entered a final divorce decree on August 6, 2003 incorporating the stipulation.
- Wife began initiating the transfer on August 6, but husband did not receive the shares until August 14, after the split became effective. The shares also dropped significantly in value.
- Because the transfer occurred after the split, husband received 16,066 post-split shares, which represented about one-fifth of the total post-split shares, while wife retained about four-fifths.
- Husband initially filed a motion for relief from judgment but withdrew it and instead moved to enforce the decree, arguing that the “immediately” language meant he was entitled to what 16,066 shares represented as of the decree date, including the benefit of the split right that had already vested by the record date.
- The family court granted enforcement and ordered wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares to husband.
- Wife appealed, arguing the enforcement order impermissibly modified the final property division and that husband should be bound to the fixed number of 16,066 shares (and should have discovered the impending split on his own).

## Issues

1. Did the family court’s order requiring wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares change the final property division (an improper modification), or did it permissibly enforce the divorce decree?
2. When a stock split is declared with a record date occurring before the stipulation and final decree, does the right to receive the additional split shares attach to the shares awarded in the decree even if the split becomes effective later?

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s enforcement order.
- The court held that the entitlement to the stock-split dividend vested before the parties signed the stipulation and before the divorce became final.
- Because that entitlement was a right associated with ownership of the shares as of the record date, the 16,066 shares awarded to husband carried the right to the additional shares once the split occurred.
- Ordering wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares was a proper enforcement measure to give husband what the decree awarded, not a reallocation of property after final judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A final divorce property division generally cannot be modified, but a court may construe, clarify, and enforce its decree through supplemental orders that carry out the decree’s original terms.
- In enforcing a decree that incorporates a property stipulation, the court may ensure that the awarded asset is delivered with its associated rights and incidents that had already vested at the time of judgment.
- A declared stock split with a fixed record date creates a vested right (a property right to receive the additional shares) for shareholders of record; that right is part of the ownership interest transferred with the shares.
- An enforcement order that implements the decree’s awarded interest—rather than changing the allocation—does not become a prohibited modification merely because it requires an additional transfer to reflect a vested incident of the awarded asset.

## Conclusion

Mason v. Mason held that the divorce decree awarding husband 16,066 shares of bank stock also conveyed the already-vested right to receive the additional shares from a declared three-for-two split based on a pre-decree record date. The family court therefore acted within its authority to enforce, not modify, the final property division when it ordered wife to transfer 8,033 additional shares so husband received the stock interest the decree awarded.


Mason v. Mason, 904 A.2d 1164 (2006)