What I don't get; shouldn't it already have vested if he is a founder? I'm not sure about the system there but when I found a company those shares are mine?
The advice has been given several times, on HN, that founders should vest, so that you don't need to claw back 1/3 the company from a founder who walks away a month in.
This is sane advice if you're playing the standard VC game where you shop around for a co-founder, raise funds, and build a product (not necessarily in that order).
OP's situation sounds more like a bootstrapped small business where he invested his life savings and blood/sweat/tears. I'm not sure that vesting shares is ideal there -- perhaps a well defined shotgun clause or similar is more reasonable to handle unruly founders.
