Opinion ID: 1833353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in awarding the relief given in its motion sua sponte.

Text: ¶ 32. The chancellor in his Order On Motion Sua Sponte To Reconsider The Court's Ruling And Opinion Dated October 5, 1999, And Amending Said Opinion never once mentioned that said order was in response to a Motion for Contempt filed by Brenda. None of Brenda's motions for contempt mention the A.G. Edwards accounts. We find no link between the chancellor's motion sua sponte and Brenda's motion(s) for contempt other than unsubstantiated references in the parties' briefs. Therefore Ken's argument that the chancellor did not have jurisdiction is moot. ¶ 33. We have already held that these accounts were at least partially composed of funds acquired by the parties during the marriage, thereby making them marital assets. The chancellor entered this order for the purpose of rectifying the inadvertent failure of the [c]ourt to include a certain asset in the marital estate. We find that the chancery court did not commit procedural error in this instance.