Miller v. Miller,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Larlee, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 NBCA 37
• Date: 01 May 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Miller v. Miller (2003), 259 N.B.R.(2d) 132 (CA);

    259 R.N.-B.(2e) 132; 681 A.P.R. 132

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.013

Gavin Raymond Miller (petitioner/appellant) v. Andrea Beth Miller (respondent/respondent)

(116/02/CA; 2003 NBCA 37)

Indexed As: Miller v. Miller

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Larlee, Deschênes and Robertson, JJ.A.

May 1, 2003.

Summary:

A husband petitioned for divorce. At issue was child and spousal support and the divi­sion of marital property.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, in a judgment reported [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 68, granted a divorce, awarded spousal and child support and divided the marital property. The husband appealed the court's valuation of stock options and the decision to divide their value by means of an "if and when order".

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 880.33

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Severance or retirement allowance - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the classification of employee benefits such as retirement allowances as marital proper­ty - The court opined that "with respect to retirement allowances, the true issue is not whether such a contractual right (chose in action) constitutes marital property, but how such intangibles should be valued" - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Family Law - Topic 880.47

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Company shares, stock options, etc. - The trial judge held that stock options, which were unvested property rights, were marital property subject to division - The ap­propriate manner of division was on a percentage basis if and when they were exercised - The percentage the non-stock option holding spouse was entitled to was based on the total number of years stock options accumulated during the marriage divided by the total number of years the stock options were earned - The trial judge awarded a wife 50% of stock options earned by the husband during the marriage - The husband had the sole discretion as to when to exercise the options and must exercise them in the best interests of both spouses - When the options were exer­cised, the wife was to receive 50% of the net after tax proceeds - The New Bruns­wick Court of Appeal affirmed that un­exercised stock options constituted marital property and that the court had jurisdiction under s. 10 of the Marital Property Act to grant "if and when" orders - The trial judge did not err in effecting an equal division by issuing an "if and when" order - See paragraphs 40 to 65.

Cases Noticed:

Clarke v. Clarke, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 795; 113 N.R. 321; 101 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 275 A.P.R. 1; 28 R.F.L.(3d) 113; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Salstrom v. Salstrom (1987), 404 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. App.), refd to. [para. 5].

MacDougald v. MacDougald (1988), 86 N.B.R.(2d) 308; 226 A.P.R. 308; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Stevens v. Stevens (1986), 70 N.B.R.(2d) 138; 179 A.P.R. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Aubie v. Aubie (1988), 91 N.B.R.(2d) 5; 232 A.P.R. 5; 14 R.F.L.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Isbister v. Isbister (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 353; 22 R.F.L.(2d) 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Losier v. Losier (1994), 155 N.B.R.(2d) 8; 398 A.P.R. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Léger v. Léger (1994), 143 N.B.R.(2d) 148; 366 A.P.R. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Schwartz v. Schwartz (1997), 188 N.B.R.(2d) 86; 480 A.P.R. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Durling v. Durling, [1990] N.B.J. No. 120 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Stapleton v. Stapleton (1990), 112 N.B.R.(2d) 181; 281 A.P.R. 181 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

St. Onge v. St. Onge, [1990] N.B.J. No. 526 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Saunders v. Saunders (1991), 122 N.B.R.(2d) 16; 306 A.P.R. 16 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Spence v. Spence (1994), 146 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 374 A.P.R. 321 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Boucher v. Boucher, [1997] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 2 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Adams v. Adams, [1998] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 7 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Penner v. Penner (1984), 42 R.F.L.(2d) 402 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Scullion v. Scullion (1995), 158 N.B.R.(2d) 259; 406 A.P.R. 259 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

McIntyre v. McIntyre (1995), 160 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 412 A.P.R. 81 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Douthwright v. Douthwright (1996), 173 N.B.R.(2d) 96; 441 A.P.R. 96 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

French v. French, [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 39 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Reardon v. Smith (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 339; 557 A.P.R. 339; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Roberts v. Roberts (1999), 258 A.R. 392; 3 R.F.L.(5th) 148 (Q.B.), agreed with [para. 30].

Gardiner v. Gardiner (1996), 191 A.R. 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Buttrum v. Buttrum, [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 365; 15 R.F.L.(5th) 250 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Green v. Green (1985), 64 Md. App. 122; 494 A.2d 721, refd to. [para. 31].

Smith v. Smith (1984), 682 S.W.2d 834 (Mo. App.), refd to. [para. 31].

Chen v. Chen (1987), 142 Wis.2d 7; 416 N.W.2d 661 (App.), refd to. [para. 31].

Hann v. Hann (1995), 655 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. App.), refd to. [para. 32].

Petrocco v. Petrocco (1996), 1 O.T.C. 310 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [para. 33].

Sail Labrador Ltd. v. Navimar Corp. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 265; 235 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 35].

Jennings v. Jennings et al. (1988), 87 N.B.R.(2d) 436; 221 A.P.R. 436; 12 R.F.L.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Mombourquette v. Mombourquette (1996), 174 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 444 A.P.R. 1 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Epstein v. Epstein (1988), 86 N.B.R.(2d) 326; 219 A.P.R. 326 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Boston v. Boston, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413; 271 N.R. 248; 149 O.A.C. 50; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 17 R.F.L.(5th) 4, refd to. [para. 42].

Hartwick v. Hartwick, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1194 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

LeMoine v. LeMoine (1996), 181 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 460 A.P.R. 1 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Best v. Best, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 868; 242 N.R. 1; 123 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

MacDonald v. MacDonald (1997), 209 A.R. 178; 160 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

DeJesus v. DeJesus (1997), 90 N.Y.2d 643; 687 N.E.2d 1319; 665 N.Y.S.2d 36 (Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 59].

Bornemann v. Bornemann, [1998] CT-QL 208 (Conn. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

Fraser v. Fraser (1983), 47 N.B.R.(2d) 364; 124 A.P.R. 364; 35 R.F.L.(2d) 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Khoury v. Khoury (1994), 150 N.B.R.(2d) 286; 385 A.P.R. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Reardon v. Smith (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 339; 557 A.P.R. 339; 1 R.F.L.(5th) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Rawluk v. Rawluk (1986), 55 O.R.(2d) 704 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Marital Property Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. M-1.1, sect. 10 [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacLeod, James G., Annotation to Arnold v. Washburn (2001), 20 R.F.L.(5th) 236, pp. 237 to 242 [para. 41].

Ranot, S.Z., The Valuation of Employee Stock Options (June 24, 1999), generally [para. 44].

Tyler, E.L.G., and Palmer, N.E., Crossley-Vaines' Personal Property (5th Ed. 1973), pp. 11, 12 [para. 36].

Vallance, I.C., Ages, K.V., and Pont, M., Stock Options and Net Family Property, 9th Annual Institute of Family Law 2000, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa (May 26, 2000), generally [para. 43].

Counsel:

Donald F. Cullinan, for the appellant;

Ellen C. Desmond, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 22, 2003, before Larlee, Deschênes and Robert­son, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

On May 1, 2003, Robertson, J.A., deliv­ered the following judgment of the Court in both official languages.