plan that will result from his post-divorce employment or contributions of his separate property. Thus, the trial court’s division of Randall’s 401(k) plan was not an abuse of discretion. We overrule point eight. C. Stock Options In his ninth point, Randall complains that the trial court improperly characterized his stock options as 100% community property when they were actually partly his separate property. At divorce, the trial court is charged with determining the rights of both spouses in employee stock option plans and stock options. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 7.003 (Vernon 1998). The divorce decree awards Ginger: One-half (50%) of the “fair value” options to purchase shares in Onex Food Services, Inc. held in the name of Randall C. Boyd subject to Tex.App.-Amarillo 1988, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Because Randall’s fair value stock options
holding that employee spousess interest in his companys profit sharing stock plan awarded for work done outside of marriage was spouses separate property holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during 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 stock plan to which employer and employee spouse both made contributions and whose value was dependent on length of employee spouses employment was a deferred compensation retirement plan holding that whether a spouses employment termination benefit is separate or marital property is determined by whether the right to payment accrued during marriage