could not accurately enforce this portion of the property settlement agreement, despite testimony from both Mr. and Mrs. Prine that they knew exactly which tools Mr. Prine was to receive under the term “small hand tools” as such term was used in the property settlement agreement. Additionally, the chancellor made no finding as to Mr. Prine’s rights with respect to a “Yamaha 250 four wheel ATV” that Mr. Prine was to receive under the terms of the property settlement agreement, an article of personal property which Mrs. Prine gave away for no consideration after Mr. Prine fled the marital home. ¶ 16. Under these facts I must conclude that the chancellor committed manifest error in attempting to modify the terms of an enforceable property settlement agreement. See Mount, 624 So.2d at 1005 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I would reverse the chancellor’s
holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that chancellor committed manifest error when he modified property settlement agreement holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement