Marriage of Hug
Court of Appeal of California
201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984)
- Written by Maggy Gregory, JD
Facts
Paul (plaintiff) and Maria Hug (defendant) were married in 1956. Paul took a position with Amdahl Corporation (Amdahl) in 1972. Amdahl had a plan for offering stock options to important employees for the primary purpose of recruiting and retaining high-quality employees, as well as providing an incentive for performance. In 1972, Paul received a stock option to purchase 1,000 shares of Amdahl stock at $20 per share. In 1974, that stock option was modified to provide Paul with the option to purchase 1,000 shares of Amdahl stock at $1 per share. Additional stock options were granted in 1974 to purchase another 1,300 shares at $1 per share and in 1975 to purchase 800 shares at $5 per share. Each of the stock options was required to be exercised over a four-year period. In 1976, Paul and Maria were separated. The trial court heard evidence as to the purpose of the stock options and determined that the stock options were granted primarily by Amdahl in order to initially recruit Paul in 1972 and then to compensate him for quality performance during his employment. The trial court apportioned the stock options as of the date Paul began employment with Amdahl, giving Maria a substantial interest in the stock options. Paul appealed the trial court's ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.