reversal. Id. By contrast, in this case mother holds sole title to the Sunset Lake Road house. There is no mortgage, and mother’s parents have no recorded interest in the property. Any legal interest held by mother’s parents is largely theoretical at this point. Thus, the trial court did not err in in.1uding the house in the marital estate and dividing the equity between the two parties. ¶ 25. Mother also claims that it was unfair for the family court to order her to pay $85,000 to father within 120 days of the divorce decree or risk foreclosure or sale of the house. The family court has the power to order the sale of the marital home. Mansfield v. Mansfield, 167 Vt. 606, 608, 708 A.2d 579, 582 (1998) (mem.); see also Milligan v. Milligan, 158 Vt. 436, 440, 613 A.2d 1281, 1284 (1992) (<HOLDING>). It also has the power to create a security
holding that separate property valued at 45000 was transmuted to marital property when improved by 3800 of marital property holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to award a spouse all of the divisible property attributable to his postseparation payments which reduced marital debt holding that court may order marital property to be liquidated and immediately reduced to cash when the court finds it necessary as here to meet immediate needs holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital