Florida Statutes labels “nonvested” benefits, rights and funds as marital assets and the courts’ determinations that vested stock options fall within the purview of section 61.075(5)(a)4., we hold that appellant’s un-vested stock options that accrued during the marriage also come within the definition of “marital assets.” While both expert witnesses in this case testified that appellant’s unvested stock options were incapable of being valued or transferred as of yet, the stock options were granted to appellant during the marriage. Contrary to appellant’s argument, these stock options are not analogous to personal goodwill, but instead represent appellant’s past commendable employment service to Cisco Systems that he provided during the marriage. Appellant’s employer so 499 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N.J.Super. 325, 361
holding that like pension benefits stock options are a form of deferred compensation for efforts expended during the marriage holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage holding that stock options that could be purchased but not sold without company consent during marriage were community property even though value of options was dependent upon employee spouses postdivorce employment holding that unvested stock options are a form of compensation and constituted marital property that could be distributed through use of a constructive trust holding that unexercised stock options obtained during the marriage are marital property just like traded options or traded common stock