Opinion ID: 1649659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible procedural errors and/or erroneous findings of fact.

Text: ¶ 30. Belinda raises this issue as a list of errors that cumulatively, if not individually, warrant reversal. The best method for handling such matters is to examine the assignments of error as Belinda has raised them. ¶ 31. First, Belinda alleges that the chancellor erred in handing down an impossible and muddled temporary order. At first, the order gave the couple joint physical and legal custody of Lauren and joint use and possession of the marital domicile. Sharing a house during divorce proceedings is a very unusual and uncomfortable prospect, as well as being an illogical step in resolving the matter. Belinda, in a motion to reconsider, pointed this out to the chancellor. In answer, the chancellor rightly corrected the mistake by giving Belinda exclusive use and possession of the marital home. However, this complicated matters since the chancellor left in place the provision for joint physical custody of Lauren and did not provide for any shared custody scheme. Jason refutes this argument by pointing out that while this may have been erroneous, neither Belinda nor he were prejudiced by these mistakes, and equity does not warrant reversal. See Johnston v. Johnston, 722 So.2d 453 (Miss. 1998). ¶ 32. Belinda next contends that the chancellor erred in the original final judgment dated September 2, 1999. There the chancellor awarded the couple a divorce for irreconcilable differences, as the parties had previously agreed. However, the chancellor awarded the couple temporary joint custody for six months and reserved ruling on permanent custody and equitable distribution until a later date. This Court has previously held that it is error to grant a divorce for irreconcilable differences without making a determination as to all other issues, such as custody and equitable distribution. Rounsaville v. Rounsaville, 732 So.2d 909 (Miss.1999). Furthermore, Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(2) (1994) provides that [j]oint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences is the grounds for divorce, in the discretion of the Court, upon application of both parents. Here, both parents did not agree, and the chancellor ordered temporary joint custody anyway. Again, as way of retort, Jason points to the Johnston case where a similar situation (the court reserved ruling on several issues) occurred and the Court found the error to be harmless. Id. Since neither party was prejudiced, Jason argues that reversal is unnecessary. ¶ 33. When Belinda pointed out the custody determination mistake via another motion to reconsider, the chancellor complicated matters by agreeing with the motion and then revoking the divorce decree some three and a half months after it was entered. Belinda raises the concern over what the revocation would have meant if either party had gotten remarried in the interim. While that truly would have been a legal nightmare, we do not deal in whatifs. Again, the chancellor may have erred, but there was no harm or prejudice to either party. Thus, it would be difficult to base reversal, in such a sensitive case as a custody battle, on harmless error. ¶ 34. Next, Belinda takes issue with the chancellor's appointment of a guardian ad litem after final judgment had been entered. While this is an unusual step, the chancellor had reserved ruling on certain issues, including permanent custody. Since the chancellor stated that an additional hearing was to be held concerning permanent custody upon submission of the guardian ad litem's report, we see the appointment of the guardian ad litem at the time it occurred an appropriate action (aside from the fact that the issue should have been resolved prior to the divorce decree). The appointment of a guardian ad litem to assist in determining custody is not, in itself, reversible error. ¶ 35. However, the promised additional hearing never took place, and with that mistake we take issue. In accepting and considering the guardian ad litem's report without further hearing, the chancellor essentially considered impermissible evidence, as well as deprived the parents of an opportunity to introduce evidence of changed circumstances or challenges to the report's findings. There can be little argument that the consideration of such material and the lack of a further hearing as ordained in the chancellor's own order harmed and prejudiced the parties. ¶ 36. True, most of these errors individually would not warrant reversal, but as a whole, something must be done to rectify the situation. After all, a compass and map are required to successfully navigate the labyrinth that is the procedural posture of this case. While statute and case law instruct that a custody determination must be made before a divorce for irreconcilable differences can be granted, prudence dictates that we not set aside the divorce decree in the present case. Thus, for the instant case, an exception must be made whereby the divorce decree and property judgment are affirmed and the issue of permanent custody is remanded for rehearing.