Cotton v. Cotton

¶ 12. The majority finds that the chancery court’s order interpreting its prior judgment was necessary for purposes of clarifying the judgment. I find that no interpretation was needed, as the prior judgment was valid and clear on its face. The chancery court’s order is unauthorized under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure; and, amending the prior judgment to add an additional retirement account was an abuse of discretion. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13. I am compelled to address several of the majority’s factual statements that *1187are unsupported by the record in…