¶1concurring in result only.
¶2I disagree with the application of equitable distribution principles in the other opinions. Plaintiffs central contention on appeal is that the trial court erroneously classified and/or distributed the “ASA stock options” and its proceeds. Contrary to this contention and the characterizations of my colleagues, the “stock grants” to plaintiff were not stock options, vested or nonvested.
¶3At issue is the following recitation of plaintiffs employment benefits:
As an employee-owned company, we are pleased to offer ASA stock grants to our new employees. If you are still an employee in good standing with ASA, assuming a January start date, you will be eligible to receive a stock grant in 2000 of 10,000 shares.
¶4Plaintiffs “stock grant” was with reference to the ASA Phantom Stock Program (hereinafter “Program”) that outlined unique eligibility, terms, conditions and other features. Plaintiff executed two identical ASA Phantom Stock Program Agreements, which incorporated all the terms of the Program. Plaintiff received, contemporaneous with her employment engagement, the right to receive “units” of value which were part of a hybrid form of phantom stock program so long as she remained an employee for a specific duration. According to Section 6 of the Program, the units were
intended to represent the cash equivalent of one Share, although a Unit is not a legal security issued by ASA and, as such, confers no stockholder rights. In addition, no actual Shares shall be issued pursuant to the Plan or the individual Phantom Stock Agreements issued hereunder. The rights of Participants with respect to Units shall be limited to those rights which are specifically enumerated in the Plan and in the individual Phantom Stock Agreements issued to Participants hereunder, and such rights shall be, for all purposes, unsecured contractual creditor’s rights against ASA only, having a parity with the right of all other general creditors of ASA.
¶5Section 2(r) provided that each “[u]nit shall mean a contingent right, subject to all of the terms of the Plan and the applicable Phantom Stock Agreement, to receive an amount pursuant to Section 7 (less required withholdings).” Section 7(d) defined the compensation formula as follows: “Amount payable per Participant = (number of Participants’ outstanding Units) multiplied by (the dividend per share *361declared by the Board).” “Share” is defined as “one (1) share of Common Stockf.]” Section 5 states, “[a]ll full-time and part-time . . . [e]mployees of the Company who are not eligible to participate in ASA’s Stock Grant Program are eligible to receive a grant of Units. . . .” Section 9 describes circumstances under which the total number of units subject to the Program could be adjusted; such adjustments were dependant upon changes in the number of equity shares of common stock.
¶6“A stock option is the right, or option, to buy a certain number of shares of corporate stock within a specified period for a fixed price.” Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Principles of Valuation in North Carolina Equitable Distribution Actions, Institute of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 1993, Special Series No. 10 at 35.
According to Harvard Business Review author Brian J. Hall. . . executive stock options are “call options.” They give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to purchase a company’s shares at a specified price, called the “exercise” or “strike” price. Most often, the exercise price matches the stock price at the time of the grant; these options are granted “at the money.” If an exercise price is higher than the stock price, it is granted “out of the money.” It is a premium option. If an exercise price is lower than the stock price, it is granted “in the money.” It is a discount option.
¶7Equitable Distribution of Stock Options, 17 Equitable Distribution Journal 85 (Aug. 2000).
¶8The trial court’s equitable distribution order included the following:
(9) Prior to the separation of the parties on January 29, 2000, the Plaintiff had contracted to be employed by the ASA Corporation. As a part of the employment contract, plaintiff was entitled to receive 10,000 shares of ASA Corporation stock at the end of her probationary period. The ASA Corporation was a spinoff division of her former employer, Lucent Technologies, Inc. After the separation of the parties, the ASA Corporation was purchased by AON Corporation; and, as a result of said purchase, the plaintiff obtained the right to receive 4,298 shares of AON Corporation stock on October 2, 2000. The tax basis of the ASA common stock at the time of exchange was $16,438.62. The fair market value of *362the AON stock was $39.19 per share, or $168,483.62. The plaintiff was therefore required to pay taxes in the year 2000 on the gain of $152,000. The AON Corporation therefore withheld 1,954 shares for payment of the plaintiffs taxes and issued a stock certificate to the plaintiff for 2,344 shares. Therefore, the plaintiff was credited with having $76,577.26 withheld by her employer to be applied to her 2000 federal income taxes. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff sold her 2,344 shares and received $82,637.00.
(10) The Court specifically finds that the AON Corporation stock and proceeds derived therefrom by the plaintiff in the year 2000 (after the date of separation, but before date of distribution) was acquired as a result of the efforts of plaintiff during the marriage and before the date of separation, said efforts including, but not limited to, bonuses and contractual rights. The Court makes the ultimate finding of fact that said AON Corporation stock and the proceeds derived therefrom by the plaintiff constitute divisible property pursuant to N.C.G.S. [§] 50-20(b)(4).
¶9That the ASA Phantom Stock Program had features which mirror, in some ways, those attendant to stock options, does not make the these phantom “stock grants” into a form of stock options. In addition, the following facts do not make the “grant” of these units into stock options, vested or nonvested: (1) the “units” would not be issued until plaintiff completed the required employment duration; (2) a tax basis was ultimately utilized; (3) plaintiff ultimately received an AON Corporation common stock certificate representing 2,344 shares, each with a $1.00 par stock value; (4) the AON corporation retained certain shares to satisfy tax obligations as a result of the grant; (5) Section 7 of the Program utilized the term “vest” and outlined “vesting” timelines; and (6) the cash payment to holders of units was tied to the dividends paid to ASA common stock shareholders. Moreover, essential characteristics of stock options — the right to purchase shares at a specific price during a specific duration with reference to a collateral price — are not a part of the interest at issue here. And there is nothing in the Program that references the “exercise” of anything.
¶10*363Because there are no stock options in this case, this Court’s opinion in Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N.C. App. 329, 559 S.E.2d 25 (2002), is not directly implicated.
¶11Because the trial court in this case found that the proceeds from the stock grants were acquired as the result of the efforts of plaintiff during the marriage and before the date of separation, and that the proceeds were received by plaintiff before the date of distribution, the trial court correctly concluded that these assets fall within the plain language of the definition of divisible property set out in G.S. § 50-20(b)(4)(b).
¶12*364In summary, plaintiff’s central contention on appeal, that the trial court committed legal error in classifying and/or distributing the “ASA stock options,” is erroneous. Second, the trial court’s findings of fact are unchallenged and therefore binding on this Court. In my view, the appellate record reveals the trial court judge complied with our equitable distribution statutes in all regards.
¶13. The dissent suggests that because the assignments of error and the parties’ briefs call the ASA units “stock options” that we should treat them as such on appeal. This, however, overlooks an obvious problem. The trial court judge did not find that the ASA grant consisted of “stock options.” Moreover, it is not at all evident that the trial court was even presented with an argument that these were nonvested stock options such that Fountain, 148 N.C. App. 329, 559 S.E.2d 25 (2002), and/or the cover-ture formula in G.S. § 50-20.1 should apply. As an appellate court, our function is to *363pass upon assignments of error made by the parties; assignments of error may only be made pursuant to rulings made by the trial court on the basis of the arguments made at trial. N.C. R. App. Proc. 10(b)(1). We must not, therefore, consider arguments which were not presented to the trial court for determination and which are argued for the first time on appeal. Id.
¶14. The lead opinion provides differing characterizations of the ASA units at issue. They are interchangeably described as “ASA common stock” (when there never was any grant of ASA common stock), “stock grants”, and “stock options.” Adding further ' confusion, in discussing this Court’s holding in Fountain, the lead opinion replaces the term “stock options” as utilized in that case with “stock rights.” In the present appeal, I emphasize that plaintiff’s argument is that the ASA grant involved nonvested stock options and that, pursuant to Fountainand the coverture formula in G.S. § 50-20.1, the trial court erred. While the lead opinion’s use of different terms suggests its reliance on Fountainis particularly suspect, I interpret its holding as resting, in large measure, on the treatment of the ASA units as nonvested stock options and erroneously applying and extending Fountain.
¶15. We cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence to support these findings because the record on appeal does not include a transcript. Therefore, we must accept the findings of the trial court as conclusive on the issue of whether and to what extent the stock grants and proceeds were earned as the result of the efforts of plaintiff during the marriage and before the date of separation.
¶16. The plaintiff has essentially framed the issue on appeal as whether, as a matter of law, nonvested stock options with contingencies require a District Court Judge to hold that the options are, at least in part, separate property earned as a result of nonmarital efforts. Alternatively, plaintiff asks this Court to hold that nonvested stock options are, as a matter of law, necessarily within the ambit of the coverture formula in G.S. § 60-20.1. Though reaching different results, the other opinions reveal a critical and common fallacy. In general, they have improperly replaced this Court’s judgment with that of the District Court and not deferred to the trial court’s evaluation of the relative importance of various evidentiary facts surrounding this asset. This is clearly erroneous, especially when one considers the infinite variety of “salary substitutes” that might be found to have no connection (or some) to marital efforts — or a wide variety of assets that may have more than one component — or any number of other assets our District Court Judges must classify and distribute. It cannot be, as the other opinions suggest, that necessarily, as a matter of law, an asset like that at issue in this case must be all marital or all divisible or all separate or must be a certain combination of these.
¶17dissenting.
¶18Preliminary, I point out that in nearly all of the approximately 1600 written opinions that this Court writes each year, each three-judge panel is remarkably able to fashion out a majority opinion in which at least two of the three judges agree. This case presents the rare situation where neither of the three judges on this panel agrees on the reasoning for resolving the issues before us. But see State v. Alston, - N.C. App.-, -S.E.2d - (filed 2 December 2003) (COA02-1612). Thus, there is no majority opinion in this case, only a majority agreement as to the result since Judge Levinson writes a second opinion concurring only in the result of Judge Tyson’s opinion, and I dissent from both opinions. Accordingly, neither the first, second nor dissenting opinion carries any precedential value. To obtain a definitive opinion on the issues they present, the parties must now make an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, our State’s en banc appellate court.
¶19In this case, less than two months before the parties separated, ASA offered employment, by letter dated 10 December 1999, to Ms. Ubertaccio with a start date of 1 January 2000. Under that offer of employment, Ms. Ubertaccio could become eligible to receive a *36510,000 share ASA stock grant
¶20As stated in Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N.C. App. 329, 337, 559 S.E.2d 25, 32 (2002) (emphasis supplied),
“[S]tock options are a salary substitute or a deferred compensation benefit and if received during the marriage and before the date of separation and acquired as a result of the efforts *366of either spouse during the marriage and before the date of separation, stock options are properly classified as marital property, even if they cannot be exercised until a date after the parties divorce.”
¶21Thus, Fountainteaches that to be classified as marital, stock options must be (1) received during the marriage, (2) before the date of separation, and (3) acquired as a result of the efforts of either spouse during the marriage and before the date of separation. In short, I would not extend Fountainto allow a party to obtain the benefits of a conditional stock offer that are received after separation.
¶22Indeed, the record shows that Plaintiff did not become contractually entitled to receive shares prior to separation. To the contrary, Plaintiff received only an opportunity to receive stock options if she fulfilled the conditions of employment. Before the date of separation, she had received no stock options; rather, the stock options in this case were not received until months after the date of separation when Ms. Ubertaccio completed her evaluation period. Moreover, Ms. Ubertaccio did not execute the Covenant Not to Compete until 1 September 2000, over eight months after the date of separation.
¶23Furthermore, the fact that Ms. Ubertaccio continued to work for more than five months and executed a Covenant Not to Compete to obtain stock options, fits within N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20(b)(4)(a)’s definition of “post-separation actions or activities.” Thus, the trial court erred in determining that the net proceeds of the stock rights were divisible.
¶24Additionally, even assuming that the conditional stock options were properly classified as marital, the record shows that the stock options were acquired partially as a result of services rendered *367before the date of separation, and partially as a result of services rendered beyond the date of separation. Thus, the trial court erred in awarding Mr. Ubertaccio $45,100.00 of the $82,637.00 stock proceeds. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20.1(d).
¶25Finally, the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding the classification and valuation of the stock options. See, Hall v. Hall, 88 N.C. App. 297, 363 S.E.2d 189 (1987).
¶26I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
¶27. The concurring in the result opinion seeks to make a distinction between “stock grants” and “stock options.” However, under the language of the contract, at best, the company made a “conditional stock offer” to Plaintiff. That language states, “If you are still an employee in good standing with ASA,... then you will be eligible to receive a stock grant.” Surely, the contract language does not “grant” any stock to Plaintiff at the time of the signing. Likewise, I disagree with the first opinion’s use of the term “stock rights.” No rights were acquired until Plaintiff completed the conditions for receiving stock grants. Since the stocks were neither rights nor granted, I believe the term “stock options” more accurately reflect the conditional stock offer made to the Plaintiff under the terms of the employment contract.
¶28. My contention that Plaintiff’s stock rights were conditioned on (1) her remaining an employee in good standing at the end of her six-month evaluation period, and (2) upon signing a covenant not to compete, is supported by the record. The record on appeal contained the letter from ASA offering employment to Plaintiff which states, “Your first six months of employment will be considered an evaluation period.” and “If you are still an employee in good standing with ASA, and assuming a January start date, you will be eligible to receive a stock grant in 2000 of 10,000 shares.” Moreover, the covenant not to compete agreement states explicitly that the covenant was given in consideration of units of stock in excess of 8,000.
¶29. Neither the trial judge nor the parties to this appeal considered the concurring in the result opinion’s distinction between “stock options” and “stock grants” to be an issue in this matter. Indeed, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by finding the stock options to be marital property. In response, defendant states in his brief, “The offer of employment by ASA to the Appellant,... is clear evidence that Appellant was in receipt of a nonvested interest in the stock options ... .” Moreover, even assuming this was sm “obvious issue”, our review does not permit this Court to comb the record and examine it for “obvious” issues. In any event, the contract makes it clear that the plaintiff did not receive “stock grants” at the time of her separation.
¶30. The Covenant Not To Compete states: “In consideration of a grant in excess of 8,000 Units in the ASA Phantom Stock Program, the undersigned employee . . . shall not engage in any prohibited competitive activity.” Thus, the agreement not to compete was not required by ASA; rather, it was executed in “consideration of a grant in excess of 8,000” units of stock.
¶31. The contract between Plaintiff and ASA states, “If you are still an employee in good standing with ASA . . . you will be eligible to receive a stock grant in 2000 of 10,000 shares.” (Emphasis added). Obviously, before plaintiff completed the conditions of her employment, she had no “right to those shards.”
¶32. I agree that .HaM was decided before the recent amendments to our equitable distribution statute. Nonetheless, neither the amendments to the statute nor Fountainabrogated it’s holding requiring sufficient findings of fact.