2305(a). It is well settled that the trial judge has broad discretion to consider the equity of the case in disposing of the marital homestead. See Charles, 788 F.2d 960. A reviewing court may find that there has been an abuse of discretion where “there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant factors.” Newland Moran Real Estate v. Green Cay Properties, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 576, 579 (D.V.I.App.Div.1999) (quoting Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority v. Virgin Islands Telephone Corp, 18 V.I. 451, 453 (D.V.I.1981)). Disposition of the marital homestead (unlike determinations regarding alimony, divorce, and support) allows for consideration of fault. See Charles, 788 F.2d at 966 n. 14 (<HOLDING>); see also Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204
holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that fault is considered in disposing of the marital homestead holding that it was a due process violation where the judge in issuing the death sentence against the recommendation of the jury considered a confidential presentencing report that was not considered by the jury holding that pending contingencyfee cases of a law firm constitute future income and not marital assets and although these cases may not be considered in calculating propertydivision alimony they may be considered in establishing support alimony holding based only on commonlaw doctrine statutory comparative fault not considered