Id. The second approach, labeled “immediate offset,” would establish a present value for the options and distribute that value in accordance with each party’s marital proportion. Id. The third approach, which would serve to make the value of the options immaterial, would distribute the options themselves according to the parties’ marital proportions. Id. The court in Fisher found the “deferred distribution” approach to be unavoidable because of the lack of a possible valuation for the unvested options and because the options could not be transferred. Id. at 1170. Here, the trial court imposed a constructive trust upon appellant to keep half of the options for appellee’s benefit, expressly reserving jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the trust. See Callahan, 361 A.2d at 564 (<HOLDING>). Both expert witnesses in this case testified
holding that a constructive trust is imposed in order to prevent injustice and that such a trust may be imposed when the circumstances show that it would be inequitable for the holder of legal title to retain the property 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 the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute holding that a constructive trust is appropriate in the case where transfer of the options would not be profitable possible or convenient recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy