he was to receive under its terms when he finally left the marital home in 1993. The chancellor’s ruling reveals that he apparently found that Mr. Prine had not done so. With this in mind, I respectfully dissent based upon my belief that the chancellor’s decision to award some of the disputed property to Mr. Prine while vesting title to the remainder in his former wife constituted an impermissible attempt to modify the terms of the property settlement agreement. ¶ 14. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “[a] true and genuine property settlement agreement is no different from any other contract, and the mere fact that it is between a divorcing husband and wife, and incorporated in a divorce decree, does not change its character.” East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 932 (Miss.19 (<HOLDING>). Regarding chancellors’ attempts to modify
recognizing the confidentiality ordinarily afforded to settlement agreements holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process holding that property settlement agreements may be specifically enforced recognizing exceptions in rule 408 as applying to settlement agreements and the occurrence of settlement talks holding that arbitration clauses as contractual agreements must be enforced to their terms