Opinion ID: 1140625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the chancellor abuse his discretion when he set aside the first sale and order a second sale of the marital domicile?

Text: The July 31, 1985 order of the trial court which directed the sale of the marital domicile specifically reserved jurisdiction to determine the equities and to enforce its own decree. While the better practice would have been for the trial court to adjudicate the parties' equities prior to sale in order to guide the parties bidding procedure and financing, the trial court did not err in reserving jurisdiction. Daughtrey v. Daughtrey, 474 So.2d 598, 603 (Miss. 1985). The trial court found that the first partition sale did not comply with its order. Because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the equities and to enforce its own decree, it did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new sale. This assignment of error, therefore, is without merit, and therefore, the results of the second sale are affirmed by this Court.