Opinion ID: 1152344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: nancy was entitled to an equitable division or lump sum alimony of one-half interest in 101 acre tract.

Text: Nancy contends that she was entitled to one-half interest in the 101 acre tract, while Larry claims that the chancellor erred in granting her a twenty (20%) percent interest since, for all practical purposes, his father reduced the price to such figure that was equivalent to giving the property to him; and that the money paid was solely at the insistence of Larry. He takes the position that he was responsible for the pay-back for the land. The contention of each party does not render equity to the other. The learned chancellor, exercising the wisdom of Solomon, sliced the 101 acre tract twenty (20%) percent to Nancy and eighty (80%) percent to Larry. [1] Under the facts and circumstances surrounding these parties in all their transactions and particularly in the acquisition and use of the 101 acre tract, we cannot say that the chancellor was manifestly in error and that the division was not an equitable one. Robinson v. Irwin, 546 So.2d 683, 685 (Miss. 1989); Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580-581 (Miss. 1988); Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328, 330-331 (Miss. 1986); Rives v. Rives, 416 So.2d 653, 657 (Miss. 1982). The assigned error number five is rejected.