Court Opinion

ID: 9932749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:09.693508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:14.182028
License: Public Domain

I write only to distinguish this case from Jackson v.Jackson, 656 So.2d 875 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), in which I wrote a dissenting opinion.
In Jackson, I would have affirmed the judgment in which the trial court declined to consider the husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the marital property because those benefits had not yet vested. In this case, the trial court fashioned its judgment to ensure that the wife would not be entitled to exercise any options or make any claim to certain stocks until those options vested. The judgment also gave the parties leeway on how to divide their interest in the stock options once those options vested.
The judgment in this case is written in such a way as to prevent the possible inequities that could result from dividing property that the parties do not yet have an interest in, which was my concern in Jackson. Therefore, I agree with the majority opinion's decision to affirm the judgment.