Opinion ID: 1801571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the chancellor err in enjoining the parties from selling, trading or encumbering the personal property of the parties?

Text: After their move from New York, the parties were unable to pay the moving bill and consequently their household furnishings and personal property were held in storage until the bill could be settled. At the time of trial, the bill was in excess of $4500 with the monthly storage fees accumulating. The parties had been unable to resolve their dispute over what should be done with the personal property, and Rita disclaimed any responsibility for the transportation and storage costs. The judgment of the Chancery Court enjoined either party from disposing of or encumbering the property. The chancellor stated that this arrangement was for the protection of both parties. Craig argues that the lower court erred in not allowing the parties access to the property and/or to stop the mounting cost of storage. Craig's contention that the lower court did not allow the parties access to the property and/or to stop the mounting cost of storage is not supported by the record. The judgment of the court stated: The Court enjoins the parties from selling, trading, or encumbering any of the personal property... . No restriction was placed on access or on paying the cost of storage. Craig further contends that the lower court could have divided the property under the cases of Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328 (Miss., 1986) and Dudley v. Light, 586 So.2d 155 (Miss. 1991). In this contention, Craig is also mistaken. In both cases cited, the Court was concerned with property division after divorce was granted. However, where no divorce is granted, the Chancery Court is without authority to order division of the marital assets. Thompson v. Thompson, 527 So.2d 617, 623 (Miss. 1988). Under the facts of this case, the court was also without compelling reason or justification in enjoining the parties from doing with their property as they so desire. For this reason, the portion of the order of the Chancery Court enjoining the parties from selling, trading or encumbering the personal property of the parties is reversed and rendered.