VII, we will not address the remaining issues. CONCLUSION ¶ 43. This Court holds that the court below erred in failing to make a record as to the findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding his application of the Ferguson factors in awarding Jo Ann 40% of the marital estate. ¶ 44. While the chancellor did not err in appointing an expert; the expert, in contravention to the order of the chancellor, valued the marital estate as of 1998 instead of 1992, or at the end of the bankruptcy. This valuation constitutes manifest error. ¶ 45. The chancellor was also in error when he ordered Roger to pay part of Jo Ann’s attorney fees as well as the expert fees. The chancellor made no finding that Jo Ann was unable to pay those fees, in direct contravention to establish d 343, 346 (App.1981)(<HOLDING>); our case law suggests that, for valuation
holding courts should utilize the date at which the divorce is granted holding property settlement to be contractual obligation from date of final judgment of divorce holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective holding that valuation should occur on the date of the trial at which property issues are determined holding the correct date to use when determining the controlling statute is date upon which the claim arose