for continued employment after the divorce. Texas courts have consistently held that stock options acquired during marriage are a contingent property interest and a community asset subject to division upon divorce. Kline v. Kline, 17 S.W.3d 445, 446 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); Charriere v. Charriere, 7 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex.App.Dallas 1999, no pet.); Bodin v. Bodin, 955 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Demler v. Demler, 836 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ). The fact that stock options are not fully vested by the time of divorce does not affect their character as community property, as long as the options were acquired during the marriage. Kline, 17 S.W.3d at 446; Bodin, 955 S.W.2d at 381; see also Cearley, 544 S.W.2d at 665-66 (<HOLDING>). But see Acosta v. Acosta, 836 S.W.2d 652, 654
holding a nonemployee spouse who holds a community pioperty interest in an employee spouses retirement benefits owns a community property interest in the latters iethement benefits as enhanced by eaily xetirement incentives holding railroad retirement benefits are not community property by congressional action holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding that a spouses military retirement benefits were community property even though the employee spouse enlisted in the united states air force six years prior to the marriage holding that employee spouses accrued but unvested retirement benefits are a contingent property interest and a community asset