Opinion ID: 1596757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in expanding, from possession only to exclusive use and possession, the rights of Clifford Grey in and to the marital domicile located near Highway 61.

Text: Roberta claims that the difference between the chancellor's initial ruling and his final order is error because the effect of the final order prevents a partition of the Highway 61 property awarded to Clifford. This, in effect, divested Roberta of title to that property, which the chancery court is without authority to do, according to Roberta. This issue has previously been decided by this Court, with results unfavorable to Roberta. A chancellor's bench ruling is not final, but is subject to modification by that same chancellor. Love v. Barnett, 611 So.2d 205, 208 (Miss. 1992). The chancellor's decision is not the same thing as the court's final judgment. Banks v. Banks, 511 So.2d 933, 935 (Miss. 1987). Only a final judgment is appealable. Id. Moreover, Roberta did not seek partition or possession of the Highway 61 house in her complaint for divorce. Prior to the court signing the final order, the attorneys for both parties met in chambers where the court informed them that he intended to give Clifford the same thing he gave Roberta  exclusive use and possession. This Court affirms.