At trial and on appeal, we argued that certain unvested stock options awarded to our client were not part of the marital estate because the stock options were awarded to the husband solely for future performance, that is, employment performance that would take place after the dissolution of the marriage. In this case, the options would not vest for a year after the dissolution. Our advocacy convinced the Trial Court to agree with our analysis. The wife appealed, arguing the Trial Court erred in finding that the defendant’s unvested stock options were not marital assets and not subject to distribution, erred in awarding nonmodifiable alimony for a period of 11 years, and awarded an inadequate amount of alimony. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision that the stock options were not marital assets. Our client’s employment with the company offering the options began approximately one month before the final judgment of dissolution. The first of the options would not vest until a year after the start of employment and were, as we advocated, offered as incentive for future services; thus, not marital assets. On the other issues where we were successful at trial, the Appellate Court ruled that the Trial Court properly limited the duration of the alimony award as an incentive to the plaintiff to become self-sufficient and that the amount of alimony awarded was not inadequate. The Trial Court properly excluded evidence concerning the post majority expenses of the parties’ children, as there was no written agreement regarding post majority education.