The issue is whether the order of the trial court was an exercise of its in rem or in persona jurisdiction. The order, entered in the context of the parties' divorce action, directed the parties to sell real property outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and prescribed the distribution of the proceeds from the sale. We conclude the order implicated the court's in personam jurisdiction, and affirm the trial court. Appellant-husband appeals from that portion of the trial court's final order of equitable distribution which directed the parties to sell their vacation home located in Ohio and prescribed how the proceeds from the sale should be divided between them. Husband concedes that 23 Pa. C.S. §3104(a)(1) provides that in cases of divorce the courts shall have original jurisdiction over, inter alia, "the determination and disposition of property rights and interests between spouses." He argues on appeal, however, that such jurisdiction extends only to property located in Pennsylvania because a Pennsylvania court cannot exercise in rem jurisdiction over real or personal property which is located outside the state. Husband contends that the basis of jurisdiction over property is the presence of that property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state and that a Pennsylvania court thus lacks jurisdiction over property located in Ohio because such property is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Pennsylvania.....

Questions:

1. What did the Pennsylvania trial court order with respect to the Ohio property?
2. In jurisdictional terms, why did the husband object to this order?
3. The court agreed with the husband's argument, why?
4. Although agreeing with the husband's argument, the court nonetheless concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the order regarding the out of state property. How did the court reach this conclusion? What kind of jurisdiction did this court determine the trial court had been exercising when it made this order?