In a recent case, In the Matter of Michael Greenberg and Anne Greenberg, the New Hampshire Supreme Court examined whether vested stock options, like bonuses, should be considered income for calculating child support.
The court analyzed whether Father’s vested restricted stock constituted income for child support purposes by looking at how the restricted stock was treated within his compensation package. The court found that the restricted stock awards functioned similarly to retention bonuses, providing an incentive for Father to remain with his employer. The court referenced the statutory definition of “gross income” for child support purposes, which broadly includes income from any source, such as bonuses.
The court relied on prior case law, specifically In the Matter of Dolan & Dolan, where stock options were treated as part of the petitioner’s compensation and were classified as income. Similarly, the court held that Father’s vested restricted stock awards were part of his overall compensation and therefore counted as income once they vested, even if Father chose not to sell them immediately.
The court rejected Father’s argument that the restricted stock should only be considered income once sold. It noted that New Hampshire’s child support guidelines are based on income, not assets, and since the vested stock could be sold or held at Father’s discretion, it should still be considered income upon vesting. The ruling aligned with the state’s policy goals of ensuring that children enjoy a standard of living equal to that of the parents’ subsequent families.
If you’re going through a divorce or have any questions, please contact us to schedule a consultation.
