law. ¶46. The judgment of the Chancery Court of Issaquena County is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶ 47. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PRATHER, C.J., WALLER, COBB AND DIAZ, JJ., CONCUR. SMITH, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. BANKS, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY McRAE, J. PRATHER, C.J., JOINS IN PART. MILLS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING. BANKS, Presiding Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part: ¶ 48. I agree that the chancery court’s judgment must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings to more precisely articulate a consideration of the Ferguson factors. I also believe, however, that the chancellor’s acceptance of the co App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis.2d 327, 309
holding that the right of the debtor to claim property as exempt is generally determined on the facts as they exist on the date of the filing of the petition holding courts should utilize the date at which the divorce is granted holding that the date of injury for purposes of attorney malpractice does not occur until the last possible date when the attorneys negligence becomes irreversible holding that valuation should occur on the date of the trial at which property issues are determined holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution