to proceed and set the sale of the property for 7 July 2011. The trial court acknowledged that respondents likely had the right to arbitration but noted, “I just think they’ve got the wrong horse hooked to their cart.” The trial court did not enter a ruling on respondents’ Arbitration Motion. On 13 June 2011, the substitute trustee filed a Notice of Sale. Respondents filed their Notice of Appeal to this Court on 1 June 2011. On 5 July 2011, the clerk stayed the foreclosure pending the outcome of the appeal. Discussion We first address respondents’ argument that the trial court erred by refusing to stay the foreclosure proceeding and compel arbitration. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16(d), at the foreclosure hearing authorized under the power of sale, the clerk 7, 430 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Here, respondents incorrectly assert that the
holding that the supervisory control of the district court may be exercised through its equitable jurisdiction holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by conditioning probation upon the payment of taxes and that the excess sentence imposed was void holding that the trial court exceeded its authorized scope of review by invoking equitable jurisdiction holding that the trial court exceeded its discretion because its judgment created financial obligations for the husband that after deducting the wifes periodicalimony award from the husbands net income exceeded his remaining income recognizing that court may intervene in arbitration proceeding by invoking equitable powers