There’s a moment in a lot of divorces when someone realizes, too late, that the biggest number on the table — the retirement account, the pension, the stock — isn’t going to split the way they assumed. Not because anyone cheated. Because the asset was complicated, the records were thin, and nobody did the work in time.

This is Part 2. Part 1 covered the ground rules — that Texas assumes everything is shared, how separate money gets mixed in and lost, and how tracing proves what’s still yours. If you haven’t read it, start there; this guide builds on it. Here we go deep on the three hardest assets: the long-held retirement account, the pension, and stock options. These are where the separate-property money is biggest, hardest to prove, and most often lost.

One note up front, the same as Part 1: I am not an attorney, and I am not a CPA. I’m a financial professional — a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst — and this is financial education, not legal or tax advice. Whether an asset is separate or community is a legal question for your attorney. My job is to show you where the money and the risk actually are.

Jump to the part that fits your situation:

Why is my old 403(b) so hard to claim, when I know part of it was mine?

Because proving how much was yours takes records that may not exist anymore — and without them, the law treats the whole thing as shared. This is the case I most want you to understand, because it’s common, the dollars are large, and people who were genuinely entitled to the money lose it. Not because the law was against them. Because time was.

Picture Linda’s account. Twenty-five years ago, before she married, her 403(b) held $18,000. That’s hers — clean, clear, separate. Then twenty-five years of marriage happened. She kept adding a little from each paycheck (that’s shared money, since it came from her earnings during the marriage), and the market rose and fell and rose. Dividends reinvested. At one point she rolled an old account in. Today it’s worth $180,000, and she’s divorcing. How much of that $180,000 is her separate property?

The honest answer: it depends entirely on what she can prove — and the records she needs may no longer exist.

The records are usually gone — and that’s the whole problem

To carve Linda’s separate share out of $180,000, you generally have to establish what the account was worth on her wedding day, then trace that money’s growth forward, separately from all the shared contributions and their growth. That reconstruction runs entirely on paperwork — ideally, account statements going back to the wedding.

But most banks and investment companies keep records only seven to ten years. Marry twenty-five years ago, and the single most important document — the statement showing your balance on your wedding day — is very often simply gone. Not misplaced. Destroyed on the company’s ordinary schedule, years ago. And the fifteen-plus years of statements you’d need to trace the growth are usually gone too.

This is the cruelest version of the rule from Part 1: everything is shared until you prove otherwise — and here, the proof physically no longer exists. The default quietly swallows the claim.

Why mixing makes it so much worse

If Linda’s premarital 403(b) had just sat there untouched, it would be easy — wedding-day balance is separate, its growth is separate, done. That almost never happens. What happens instead is what Part 1 called mixing: years of shared contributions and their growth pouring into the same account as her separate balance, all buying and selling the same funds, all growing together, until you can’t tell which dollars are which.

Remember the bucket from Part 1 — sand at the bottom, the marriage’s money as water on top? This is that bucket, stirred continuously for twenty-five years. Pulling the sand back out means reconstructing, year by year: the starting separate balance, every shared contribution and when it went in, how the investments did each year, and how to fairly divide that growth between the separate and shared dollars that were invested side by side.

The part that makes even honest math hard

To split the growth fairly, you need to know how the account actually performed — the rate of return each year. Separate and shared dollars in the same account earn the same returns, so if you know the returns and when every contribution went in, you can fairly assign the growth.

But there’s a subtler layer, and it comes straight from Part 1. Remember the rule that growth on separate property can stay separate, while income it produces during the marriage may be shared? That same distinction lives inside a retirement account — and it means you sometimes need to know not just how much each holding grew, but how it grew.

A stock fund that simply rose in value grew one way. A fund throwing off dividends and interest that got reinvested quarter after quarter grew a different way — and that reinvested income was generated during the marriage. Two accounts that both went from $18,000 to $180,000 can trace very differently depending on how much of that climb was the investments appreciating versus income they kicked off along the way. It’s another reason “the balance doubled” is not an answer — you have to know what each position actually did.

But when the old statements are missing, you often don’t have the returns, or the contribution dates, or the balances — let alone the record of which growth was appreciation and which was reinvested income. You’re missing the very numbers the calculation needs. You know the beginning (maybe) and the end ($180,000), and little reliable in between.

So you’re forced into estimates — guessing at average returns, contribution timing, balances — and every estimate is something the other side can attack. A tracing built on estimates is far weaker than one built on real statements, and against the high “clear and convincing” bar from Part 1, weak can mean the claim fails completely. The less paperwork you have, the more of your rightful separate money gets swept onto the shared pile by default.

What Linda should do today — and what you should too: the records are disappearing on a schedule, and the clock is not on your side. Before anything turns contentious — while you can still calmly ask for documents — request the oldest statements the company will give you, above all the wedding-year statement. Check old tax returns, which can back up contributions and balances. Dig through physical files, old emails, saved PDFs.

Every real document you recover is separate property you may keep; every gap is separate property you may lose. The people who hold onto these claims aren’t the ones who go looking after the divorce starts — they’re the ones who understood early that a claim is only as good as the paper that proves it.

How is a pension divided in a Texas divorce — and why is Texas different?

A pension is divided using a formula, because there’s no account balance to point at — just a promise of future monthly income. And Texas figures that formula differently than most states, in a way that can move the result by tens of thousands of dollars. This matters to Linda directly, because her Teacher Retirement System pension works exactly this way.

The formula is called the coverture fraction (some people call it the “time rule”). In plain terms:

Linda taught 30 years under her pension and was married for 20 of them, so as a rough starting point, something like two-thirds of it is shared; the years before the marriage and after the divorce are hers alone. That’s the outline — but hold the word “roughly,” because for a TRS pension the real calculation is more involved than a simple time fraction, as you’ll see in a moment. First, here’s where Texas differs from most states — and where a lot of the advice you’ll find online is simply wrong for Texas.

The key question is: the fraction applies to which number — the pension as it stands on the divorce date, or the bigger pension years later at retirement, after raises and promotions?

Texas uses something called the Berry rule (from a 1983 Texas Supreme Court case) for pensions that aren’t paying out yet. The marriage’s share is measured on the benefit as it stands on the divorce date — the salary and years of service at that point — so raises and promotions Linda earns after the divorce are hers alone. Her ex doesn’t share in raises she earns after the divorce, though cost-of-living bumps may be included if the divorce decree says so. When a pension is already paying out at the time of divorce, an older approach called Taggart can apply instead — a different way of measuring the same marital share.

What am I missing? The hidden choices that decide the number

Even with the right formula, valuing a pension rests on a stack of assumptions — and whoever picks them shapes the answer. These are the things that get quietly missed:

• The exact dates. Small errors in the hire, marriage, or divorce dates move the whole calculation.
• Survivor benefits. If your ex dies first, does the pension keep paying you — or stop cold? Easy to forget until it’s too late.
• Cost-of-living raises. Whether you share in future COLAs has to be spelled out, or it can default against you.
• Your specific plan. TRS, ERS, TMRS, and city pensions each work differently — the plan documents govern, not a rule of thumb.
• The court order. A pension is split by a separate order the plan has to approve. Even perfect math fails if it’s drafted wrong.
• The discount rate. A technical dial that converts future payments into a lump sum today — turn it a little, and the value moves a lot.

“Half the pension” is not a number. It’s the result of a series of choices — and those choices are where the money is won or lost. This kind of analysis doesn’t happen at a kitchen table, and it’s routinely missed in mediation, because nobody in the room is assigned to check the assumptions.

Are stock options and RSUs mine, my spouse’s, or both?

It depends on what the stock was meant to pay for — and a single grant can be part yours, part shared, if it straddles the marriage. Equity compensation — stock options, restricted stock units (RSUs), restricted stock — is one of the trickiest things to sort out in a Texas divorce, and it’s more and more common. (This one isn’t Linda’s situation, but it may be yours, especially if your spouse works in tech, finance, or as an executive.)

The difficulty is built in: this stock is usually granted at one time but vests — actually becomes yours — over several years after that. And that window often crosses the marriage line, or the divorce line, or both.

The guiding question is what work the stock was given for. And here’s the part that trips everyone up: because RSUs vest over several years, a single grant is often part earned and part not-yet-earned at the moment you divorce — so one grant gets split by time.

The same thing is true of unvested money in a 401(k) or 403(b) — an employer match or contribution that only vests if he keeps working for years after the divorce. The portion he has to earn with post-divorce work is his separate property, for exactly the same reason. It doesn’t matter whether it’s stock, a bonus, or a retirement match: if it’s paid for work done after the marriage is over, it sits on the separate side of the line.

A couple of practical details worth knowing, because they change the math. Vesting is usually broken out year by year — a grant of, say, 400 shares often vests 100 shares a year over four years, each on its own date. That’s helpful, because it means you (or the professional helping you) can look at the schedule and see exactly which chunks vested during the marriage and which vest after. The dates do a lot of the work of splitting it.

And watch for a different animal: performance shares (PSUs). Regular RSUs vest with time. Performance stock units vest based on whether the company or the executive hits certain targets — and they often come with a multiplier, meaning the final number of shares can land anywhere from zero to two or three times the original grant, depending on results. That makes them harder to value (you don’t yet know how many shares there will be) and easy to under-count if you assume the base number is the whole story. If your spouse’s stock is tied to performance goals rather than just staying employed, it needs a closer look.

This is the honest, fair rule, and it’s worth saying plainly because it cuts both ways: the spouse who didn’t handle the finances is genuinely owed a share of what was earned during the marriage — but not the part the working spouse will earn by staying at that job afterward. It isn’t “all mine” or “all his.” It’s split by when the work was actually done.

Texas doesn’t leave this to guesswork. Texas Family Code § 3.007(d) gives a specific formula for the separate share of employer stock options and restricted stock, based on when it was granted, when it vests, and how much of that stretch touched the marriage. The rest is shared. The formula turns an expensive argument into a calculation — but only if you have the paperwork, meaning the grant and vesting agreement for every award. Miss one grant and you mischaracterize something that could be very valuable.

One recent development worth knowing: a 2026 Texas Supreme Court decision, In re J.Y.O., reinforced that deferred compensation and performance bonuses are characterized based on when you earn the right to the income, not when it’s actually paid — which limits a spouse’s ability to play games by delaying vesting or payout during a divorce.

Because most plans won’t let unvested stock be transferred to a non-employee spouse, it usually gets divided one of two ways: through a constructive trust — the employee spouse holds the other’s share and hands it over as it vests — or a cash-out offset, where the employee keeps the stock and the other spouse takes more of another asset to balance it out. The constructive-trust approach here is backed by Texas Family Code § 9.011.

What about a bonus, or deferred compensation that hasn’t been paid yet?

Here’s the rule that protects you, and it’s a powerful one: in Texas, a bonus or deferred payment belongs to whenever it was earned, not whenever it gets paid. So money your spouse earned during the marriage is shared — even if the check doesn’t land until after the divorce is final. The timing of the payout doesn’t change whose money it was.

This matters enormously for the spouse who didn’t handle the finances, because a delayed bonus is one of the easiest things in the world to quietly push past the finish line.

The unpaid bonus

Say the divorce finalizes in November, and your husband’s annual bonus — for a year he worked while married — pays out in February. Is it his, because it arrived after the divorce? No. Texas courts look at how much of that bonus relates to work done during the marriage; the portion earned while married is shared property. The Texas Supreme Court has been explicit that bonuses are dated to when the right to them arises, not when they’re paid — specifically so a higher-earning spouse can’t game the timing by delaying the payout until the marriage is legally over.

So “the bonus hasn’t been paid yet” is not the same as “the bonus isn’t part of the divorce.” If your spouse gets an annual or performance bonus, it belongs on the table — and the exact timing of when the divorce is finalized can affect how much of it you share in. And just like the RSUs, a bonus tied to a multi-year performance period splits by time: the part earned by work during the marriage is shared, the part earned by work after the divorce is his.

Non-qualified deferred compensation (the executive kind)

Higher earners — executives, physicians, senior professionals — often have something beyond a normal 401(k) or 403(b): a non-qualified deferred compensation plan. You may hear it called a SERP, an executive deferral plan, or a deferred bonus plan. Here’s why it exists: the IRS caps how much anyone can put into a regular 401(k) each year, and for a high earner that cap is small relative to their income. So the company sets up a separate arrangement that lets them set aside additional pay for the future, above and beyond those normal limits. It’s essentially extra retirement savings for people whose income outgrew the regular accounts.

Two things you need to know about it. First, the portion earned for work during the marriage is shared property — the same rule applies to these non-qualified plans as to a regular retirement account. So it’s squarely part of the divorce.

Second, and this is the part that makes it tricky: a non-qualified plan is usually just an unsecured promise by the employer to pay in the future — not a funded account the employee actually owns. There’s often no balance sitting in an account with your spouse’s name on it. That makes this kind of compensation both easy to overlook and genuinely complicated to value and divide — you’re splitting a promise, not a pile of money. It’s one of the clearest cases where you want a financial professional who has seen these before, because a spouse who doesn’t know to ask about a SERP may never learn it exists.

Watch the taxes: why an “equal” split of stock or deferred comp often isn’t

Here’s a trap that quietly costs the spouse who didn’t handle the finances, and it’s the same lesson in a new place: two numbers that look equal on paper can be worth very different amounts once you look closer. Retirement accounts, RSUs, and deferred compensation almost always come with a tax bill attached — and if you divide the face value as though it were cash in the bank, someone ends up with less than they think.

RSUs and deferred comp get taxed as ordinary income. When RSUs vest, or when deferred compensation pays out, the value is taxed as ordinary income — and that tax burden can significantly reduce what the shares are actually worth. In practice, some of the vesting shares are usually sold immediately just to cover the federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare withholding. So a grant that looks like it’s “worth $100,000” may put far less than $100,000 in someone’s pocket after the IRS takes its share.

Why this matters for a fair split: if your husband keeps a $400,000 retirement account and you take $400,000 of RSUs that haven’t vested yet, those are not equal. His account and your RSUs will be taxed differently, at different times, and the after-tax value in your hand could be tens of thousands of dollars less. On paper it looks even. In real life it isn’t.

You don’t need to work out the tax math yourself — that’s a job for a CDFA or CPA. What you need to know is simpler: always ask what something is worth after taxes, not before, and make sure the decree says who pays the tax. “Equal on paper” and “equal in your bank account” are two very different things, and the difference is exactly the kind of thing that slips past the spouse who wasn’t watching the finances.

The thread running through all of these

Notice what Linda’s 403(b), her pension, the stock options, and the unpaid bonus all have in common. In each one, the answer isn’t sitting on a statement waiting to be read. It has to be built — from records that may be missing, formulas specific to Texas, and assumptions that quietly decide the outcome. None of it happens automatically. None of it happens at a kitchen table. And in every one, the person who does the work early keeps money that the person who waits loses.

Step back and you’ll see these two guides are really one idea. Part 1 was about the front edge of the marriage — proving what was already yours when you walked in. This guide has been about the back edge and the tangled middle — the money earned over years of marriage that pays out in the future, and the money your spouse will earn after the divorce that’s theirs, not yours. Separate property sits on both sides of the marriage; the shared property is everything the two of you built in between, even when it isn’t collected until later. Get those lines right — front, middle, and back — and you know what’s actually yours.

If any of these assets are in your marriage, the move is the same one Part 1 ended on: identify them, gather every scrap of paperwork now, and get the characterization analyzed before you negotiate — not after. You can’t negotiate to keep what you haven’t proven is yours, and you can’t value what you haven’t sorted out.

Remember Linda — the teacher with the 403(b) and the pension she’d stopped thinking about. Her story doesn’t have to end with that money lost. She still has a real claim to what she brought in and what her marriage-era work earned — but only if someone reconstructs it before she signs. That’s the whole difference between her keeping it and losing it, and it comes down to the same quiet truth that runs through both of these guides: what you catch before you sign can be fixed. What you sign, you may be stuck with. The work is worth doing, and there’s still time to do it — but the clock, and the shredder, are running.

One last thing: a rule is not an answer

If you’ve read this far, you’ve noticed something. Every one of these assets had a general rule — and then a nuance that flipped it. A pension is split by a coverture fraction — except a TRS pension weights its value into the final years, so the simple fraction is wrong. Growth on separate property stays separate — except the income it earned during the marriage. An RSU vests over four years — except it’s a performance grant with a multiplier. The rule gets you to the doorway. The nuance is the whole house.

That’s worth sitting with, because chances are you found some of what you know about divorce from a search, an article, or an AI assistant — maybe that’s even how you found me. That’s a smart place to start, and I mean that. But understand what a general answer can and can’t do: it can tell you the rule. It cannot know how the rule bends for your pension, your records, your timeline, your marriage. And in these assets, the bend is exactly where the money is — tens of thousands of dollars can ride on a detail no general answer would ever think to ask you about.

This is the one place I’ll be direct about what I do: the value of an experienced professional isn’t reciting the rules — you can get those anywhere now. It’s knowing which nuance applies to you, which question to ask that you didn’t know to ask, and which detail on page nine of a plan document changes the whole answer. A guide like this can make you dangerous enough to know what’s at stake. Someone who does this every day is how you make sure the specifics actually get caught — while there’s still time to fix them.

Frequently asked questions

I brought a 401(k) or 403(b) into my marriage 20 years ago. Can I still claim the separate part?

Possibly, but it depends on documentation. The rules work the same whether it’s a 401(k), a 403(b), or an IRA. You generally need to prove the balance on your wedding day and trace its growth apart from the shared contributions — which takes records. Because most institutions keep statements only seven to ten years, the wedding-day statement is often gone, and gaps commonly cause Texas courts to treat the money as shared. If you think you have this kind of claim, request the oldest records available now, before things get contentious and before more records age out.

How is a pension divided in a Texas divorce?

Courts start with a coverture fraction — the share of the pension that accrued while you were married — but for a defined-benefit pension like Texas TRS, it’s more than a simple count of years. Texas applies the Berry rule, valuing the benefit as it stood on the divorce date, based on salary and service at that point, so raises earned afterward are the working spouse’s separate property. Because TRS uses your five highest-paid years (usually late in a career) in its formula, applying a flat time fraction to the final pension overstates the marital share. The marital portion is really the benefit amount accrued as of the divorce, which is why these need a proper valuation rather than a back-of-envelope percentage.

Are stock options and RSUs community or separate property in Texas?

Often both, split by time. Because these grants vest over several years, a single grant can be part earned during the marriage (shared) and part earned by the working spouse’s employment after the divorce (their separate property). Stock for work during the marriage tends to be shared; stock for work before the marriage or after the divorce tends to be separate. Texas Family Code § 3.007(d) provides the formula that divides a straddling grant by how much of the vesting period touched the marriage — which is why the grant and vesting documents for every award matter.

Is my spouse’s unpaid bonus or deferred compensation part of the divorce in Texas?

Often yes. In Texas, a bonus is characterized by when it was earned, not when it’s paid. If it was earned for work during the marriage, the portion tied to that work is generally community property even if it pays out after the divorce is final. The Texas Supreme Court held this in In re J.Y.O. (2026), specifically to prevent a spouse from delaying a bonus’s payment until after the marriage ends. The same principle applies to non-qualified deferred compensation, like an executive SERP: the portion earned during the marriage is shared, even though it may be an unfunded promise to pay in the future rather than a real account balance.

Do I have to pay taxes on RSUs or retirement accounts I receive in a divorce?

Often, eventually, yes — and it’s why “equal” splits frequently aren’t. RSUs and deferred compensation are taxed as ordinary income when they vest or pay out, and retirement accounts are taxed when the money comes out, so the face value of these assets is not the same as their after-tax value. Transferring assets between spouses in a divorce is generally tax-free, but cashing them out to divide the money is not. A divorce decree should state clearly who is responsible for the taxes, and Texas Family Code § 7.008 allows a court to consider tax consequences when dividing property. Always compare assets on an after-tax basis, not their sticker value.

What is a constructive trust in a divorce?

It’s a court-recognized arrangement where one spouse holds property for the other’s benefit — used when an asset can’t be divided today, like unvested stock that can’t be transferred yet. The holding spouse keeps it but has to pass the other’s share along when it vests or pays out. It can also be used to force improperly taken property back to its rightful owner.

Do I need a financial expert, or is my attorney enough?

They do different jobs, and complex assets usually take a small team. Your attorney handles the law and the process. The hands-on tracing of a commingled account — the forensic reconstruction — is typically done by a forensic accountant or tracing expert. A Certified Divorce Financial Analyst helps tie it together: spotting which assets have separate-property or valuation issues, making sure the right questions get asked, helping value a pension or weigh the after-tax trade-offs, and bringing in the tracing specialist when one is needed. For complex assets, those roles working together protect you far better than any one of them alone.

Kyle Eaton is a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (CDFA®) and CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professional in Denton, Texas, working with women navigating divorces involving complex marital estates — retirement accounts, pensions, business interests, and equity compensation — across Dallas–Fort Worth. He is not an attorney or a CPA. This article is financial education — not legal or tax advice; the characterization and division of property are questions for your own attorney.

Book a Strategy Session