Opinion ID: 1668095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the division of real property

Text: The chancellor awarded Mary Gray sole and exclusive possession, use and control of the home owned by the parties, not subject to partition. Ben Gray alleges that this essentially negates his interest in the home. In this context, not subject to partition (as used in the decree and judgment of the court below) is mere surplusage, and in no way destroys or diminishes Ben Gray's interest in the Drew property. Ben Gray further relies on Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574 (Miss. 1988), for the notion that his wife might receive lump sum alimony or an equitable division of real property, but not both. Jones is distinguishable from the case at bar in that Jones dealt with jointly accumulated property titled in the name of one spouse. Except for part of the Drew residential property, the property in this case is in the name of both parties. This Court does not read Jones as presenting an either/or option for chancellors, that they may award lump sum alimony or an equitable division of property but not both. See also Johnson v. Johnson, 550 So.2d 416 (Miss. 1989) (citing Jones ). The division of real property in the case at bar was an equitable one and is affirmed, as is the remainder of the chancery court judgment. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and BLASS, JJ., concur.