Law Dictionary 323 (6th ed. 1990). Accordingly, in this case, the trial court had the authority to make a property award in lieu of alimony, Ferguson, supra, or could award alimony to compensate a party for an unequal property distribution, Harvey, supra, but not both deny alimony and give Mr. Evtimov less marital property. That would clearly be an erroneous application of law, which is a manifest abuse of discretion. See Hall v. Kingsland School Dist., 56 Ark.App. 110, 938 S.W.2d 571 (1997). Affirming this manifestly incorrect trial court decision is not justified by the majority’s resort to fact finding. I am not sure which is the more objectionable: that they made a mistake of law in that they endeavored to do it at all, O’Dell v. Rickett, 92 Ark.App. 364, 214 S.W.3d 301 (2005) (<HOLDING>), or that they made numerous mistakes of fact
holding that the appellate court will not find a fact that was not found below as that would be an intrusion into the province of the trial court holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court holding that the tipsy coachman rule permits an appellate court to affirm a trial court order on the basis of an alternative theory which was not asserted in the court below holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below recognizing the general rule that an appellate court will not address matters that were not raised or decided in the trial court  