for the Court:
¶ 1. On Sеptember 4, 2009, Barbara Carraway Dogan (Barbara) filed for divorce from David Wade Dogan III (David) citing irreconcilable differences. Then, on February 11, 2010, Barbara filed an amended complaint for divorce, adding the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and a motion for temporary relief. The Hinds County Chancery Court entered its final judgment of divorce on April 14, 2011, granting Barbara and David a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Additionally, the chancellor provided an equitable distribution of Barbara and David’s assets and awarded Barbara rehabilitative alimony and permanent periodic alimony. Barbara filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment or, in thе alternative, a motion for a new trial. The chancellor denied Barbara’s motions; Barbara now appeals. ■
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. Barbara and David were married on May 23, 1981. The marriage produced three children: Patrick Hunter Dogan, born February 12, 1986; Mary Cameron Dogan, born January 23, 1990; and Ann Hamilton Dogan, born March 21, 1991. The couple separated in July 2009 when David moved out of the marital home. At the time, both Barbara and David were Hinds County residents. The initiation of divorce proceedings soon followed.
¶ 3. Barbara initially filed for divorce on September 4, 2009, citing irreconcilable differences. She then filed an amended complaint for divorce on February 11, 2010, adding the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and constructive desertion on February 11, 2010. She also filed a motion for temporary relief. David filed an answer to Barbara’s amended complaint for divorce and motion for temporary relief. On April 27, 2010, David filed an amended answer to Barbara’s amended complaint for divorce and motion for temporary relief. He also filed a counterclaim for divorce seeking a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Several days later, Barbara filed'her second amended complaint for divorce and motion for temporary relief. Her answer to David’s counterclaim for divorсe was filed on July 27, 2010. The chancellor held a hearing on Barbara’s motion for temporary relief on July 27, 2010 and issue a temporary order on July 29, 2010.
¶ 4. In its temporary order, the chancellor granted joint legal and physical custody of Mary Cameron and Ann Hamilton.
¶ 5. The mediation was ultimately unsuccessful; however, over the course of mediation and trial, Barbara and David stipulated to the following: the value of Dogan & Wilkinson PLLC was $72,500; the value of Barbara’s interest in her business Alternatives and Dispute Resolution (ADR) was $3,682; the parties would share joint physical custody of Ann Hamilton; and because both Barbara and David made equal contributions to the marital estate, whatever was determined to be marital would be divided equally.
¶ 6. The chancellor entered its opinion on April 12, 2011. The parties received joint legal and physical custody of Ann Hamilton, with Ann Hamilton deciding for herself which parent to spend time with when home from college. In addition to paying all of Ann Hamilton’s medical needs and maintaining a life insurance policy benefitting her, David was also ordеred to pay $400 per month in child support directly to Ann Hamilton. Ann Hamilton’s college expenses were to be paid from Ann Hamilton’s educational fund if any funds remain, and the trust fund established by her grandfather if she raised her grade-point average to a “B” average. If these funds were unavailable, David was to be “solely responsible” for Ann Hamilton’s college expenses.
¶ 7. Using the factors in Ferguson v. Ferguson,
¶ 8. The chancellor then distributed the remaining assets that were defined as marital property. David was awarded the following assets: the Grayhawk home— $61,000; Dogan & Wilkinson LLC— $72,500; wine collection and cooler— $8,000; Regions account number 8390— $385; Regions account number 5526— $985; Regions account number 4797— $778; automobile — $39,035; insurance policies from three different providers— $40,513, $23,506, $3,310; Dogan & Wilkinson LLC 401(k) — $106,664; home furnishings and personal items — $11,930; season tickets for University of Mississipрi sporting events — $10,000; and attorney’s fees— $62,000. The chancellor found David’s total assets to be $443,606. Barbara received the following assets: East Manor home — $154,875; Alternatives & Dispute Resolution (ADR) — $3,682; jewelry— $20,095; Regions account number 9486— $761; Regions account number 0033— $362; Community Bank account number 5095 — $15,000; automobile — $23,650; David’s Pershing IRA — $72,312; home furnishings — $17,733 and $11,930; Pershing IRA — $38,746; and Pershing SEP— $14,782. Barbara also received six Mass-Mutual insurance policies valued at $0; $49,479; $11,745; $4,240; $3,069; and $2,836. She received a Northwestern Mutual insurance policy valued at $0. Lastly, Barbara received a TransAmerica Life insurance policy valued at $5,539. Her marital estate, not including her separate estate, was valued at $450,836.
¶ 9. After much discussion regarding David’s potentially fluctuating income, the сhancellor determined that David’s gross monthly income was $19,000. Barbara’s monthly income was determined to be $648 with a gross earning capacity of $3,500 per month. Barbara was awarded $2,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for sixty months and permanent periodic alimony of $2,000 per month. The final judgment of divorce was entered on April 14, 2011. Barbara filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. The chancellor held a hearing on Barbara’s motions on June 15, 2011, and on June 29, 2011, he denied her motions.
¶ 10. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of her motions, Barbara now appeals and raises the following issues:
1. The chancellor erred in [determining] David’s gross income for thе purpose[s] of child support and alimony.
2. The chancellor erred in his classification and division of the marital assets and debt.
3. The chancellor erred in his division of personal property.
4. The chancellor erred in failing to find that David has dissipated and depleted marital assets.
5. The chancellor erred in determining the proper amount of child support to be paid by David.
6. The [chancellor] erred in assigning a value of $250,000 to $300,000 to Barbara’s interest in the [Living Trust],
7. The chancellor erred in his ruling regarding [awards of] rehabilitative alimony and permanent periodic alimony.
8. The [chancellor] erred in failing to award Barbara attorney’s fees.
¶ 11. In domestic-relations cases, our standard of review is limited. In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood,
ANALYSIS
I. GROSS INCOME
¶ 12. On appeal, Barbara first claims that the chancellor erred in finding David’s monthly gross income was $19,000, and that as a result, the amount of alimony and child support she was awarded was also incorrect. Barbara alleges that David’s income should have been $25,809 per month and not $19,000 as the chancellor found or $15,000 as David listed on his Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 financial statement.
¶ 13. The chancellor made several specific findings in regard to David’s income. He acknowledged that there had been significant conflicting testimony about David’s future income due to the bankruptcy of Durabla, a Dogan <& Wilkinson client. Du-rabla had not produced any fees for the firm sinсe January 2010. The chancellor stated the following: “This [c]ourt acknowledges that David has had special draws in the past and has also been reimbursed for certain personal charges on his corporate American Express card. However, this [c]ourt cannot agree with Barbara that David can reasonably expect to gross as much as $35,042.” Further, he stated that “[i]t is virtually impossible for this [c]ourt to determine David’s exact gross monthly income given the drastic changes in his law practice and the fluid manner in which a law partner makes draws and incurs expenses.” The chancellor noted that David’s income on the loan document for the Grayhawk home reflected the avеrage of his past two federal tax returns and did not take into account the changes to his and the firm’s loss of income from Durabla; thus, the loan document was not an accurate indicator of his current monthly income. In determining David’s monthly income, the chancellor found “that David’s average monthly income from the past five years of $34,411.40 is instructive in demonstrating David’s earning capacity but is not, alone, an accurate reflection of David’s current income.” The chancellor relied on Exhibit 12 depicting David’s January 2010 through September 2010 draws, to determine David’s monthly income of $18,750. Ultimately
¶ 14. Barbara also argues that David committed a fraud upon the court by stating on his Rule 8.05 financial statement that his monthly income was $15,000 and shortly thereafter stating on his home loan application that his monthly income was approximately $85,000. In Mississippi, the general rule is that fraud will not be presumed but must be affirmatively proven by clear and convincing evidence. See Hamilton v. McGill,
(1) that the facts constituting the fraud, accident, mistake or surprise must have been the controlling factors in the effec-tuation of the original decree, without which the decree would not have been made as it was made; (2) the facts justifying the relief must be clearly and positively allеged as facts and must be clearly and convincingly proved; (3) the facts must not have been known to the injured party at the time of the original decree, and (4) the ignorance thereof at the time must not have been the result of the want of reasonable care and diligence.
Manning v. Tanner,
¶ 15. Based on the facts before us, we cannot find that the chancellor was manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous in determining David’s monthly income was $19,000. The chancellor clearly considered a variety of factors in reaching his decision. The chancellor acknowledged David’s monthly income for previous years as well as the then-current year, looked at the evidence presented through David’s Rule 8.05 financial statement and the firm’s financial account, and determined that an accurate reflection of David’s income was $19,000. Based upon our standard of review, we do not find reversible error.
II. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
¶ 16. For the sake of judicial economy, we will review Issues 2, 3, and 6 under this heading.
A. Equitable Distribution
¶ 17. In making an equitable distribution of property, the chancellor must first classify each asset and debt as either marital or separate. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald,
¶ 18. In Issue 2, Barbara argues that the chancellor erred in classifying David’s Grayhawk home as marital debt and erred in allocating all debt from the East Manor home to her. According to Barbara, she will never directly benefit from the Gray-hawk home sinсe the chancellor awarded David all the interest and equity in the home even though he used marital funds to purchase it. She claims that David’s estate should be credited with $311,000 in marital assets instead of just the $61,000 in equity. She further claims that the chancellor stated he would require David to repay Barbara for half of the marital funds used to buy the home in either lump sum or permanent periodic alimony. Further, Barbara claims that the chancellor erred in allocating all the debt owed on the East Manor home to her, because the mortgage is a joint mortgage, and David benefitted from the debt on this home as he lived in it for several years. Barbara argues that the debt on the East Manor home should have been marital debt assigned to David since he was responsible for paying the mortgage from the time the home was purchased.
¶ 19. Then, in Issue 3, Barbara claims that the chancellor failed to consider the value of home furnishings that David had previously removed from the marital home when determining David’s total of marital property. The chancellor found that David received $371,606 of marital property, but Barbara asserts that the correct total is $389,491 after adding in the property that was taken.
¶ 20. It is well established that equitable distribution does not require an “equal” distribution. Wells v. Wells,
¶ 21. Because we cannot find that the chancellor erred in his classification and distribution of the parties’ marital assets, Issues 2 and 3 are without merit.
B. Valuation of the Residuary Trust
¶ 22. Barbara argues in Issue 6 that the chancellor erred in valuing her share of the Living Trust at $250,000 to $300,000. The Living Trust contains approximately $760,000 and may be partially funded by hеr step-mother Sylvia Carra-way’s home and half of its contents. Sylvia also has a trust from which she receives $55,000 per year for life, and if that trust is depleted, the Living Trust will feed Sylvia’s trust. The Living Trust also pays the maintenance and expenses associated with Sylvia’s home and premiums on a joint life-insurance policy that funds another trust.
¶23. In Dunaway v. Dunaway,
It is our conclusion that the chancellor, faced with proof from both parties that was something less than ideal, made valuation judgments that find some eviden-tiary support in the record. To the extent that the evidence on which the chancellor based his opinion was less informative than it could have been, we lay that at the feet of the litigants and not the chancеllor.
In the current case, the chancellor was presented with evidence about the Living Trust from both Barbara and David. According to David, Barbara could ask the trustees to provide funds for her to maintain her standard of living. Barbara disagrees and claims she has no say in whether the trustees would permit payment to her. The parties disagreed as to how much interest Barbara could earn and how much she could take out without invading the Living Trust’s principal. Neither party produced a specific and reliable valuation of the Living Trust; therefore, the burden fell on the chancellor to, using the provided evidence, make a valuation of the Living Trust. Based on the conflicting evidence presented to him, he made a conservative valuation of the trust. We cannot find that he committed reversible error in that valuation.
¶ 24. This issue is without merit.
III. ALIMONY
¶25. Again, for the sake of judicial economy, we will address Issues 4 and 7 in this section.
¶ 26. Under Armstrong v. Armstrong,
1. The income and expenses of the parties;
2. The health and earning capacities of the parties;
3. The needs of each party;
4. The obligations and assets of each party;
5. The length of the marriage;
6. The presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay, or personally provide, child care;
7. The age of the parties;
8. The standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and*1126 at the time of the support determination;
9.The tax consequences of the spousal support order;
10. Fault or misconduct;
11. Wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; or
12. Any other factor deemed by the court to be “just and equitable” in connection with the setting of spousal support.
¶27. The chancellor provided a thorough analysis of these factors in his opinion, which we will describe further in detail when discussing Barbara’s argument that the chancellor erred in determining the appropriate amounts and types of alimony.
A. Permanent Periodic Alimony
¶ 28. Barbara argues that the chancellor erred in determining her alimony and applying the Armstrong factors. She claims that she “is entitled to permanent periodic alimony in a sufficient amount to allow her to continue to maintain the standard of living to which she has been accustomed during the marriage of the parties.” To support her argument, she describes several Armstrong factor and how the chancellor erred in applying those factors to her case.
¶ 29. The first factor is the parties’ incomes and expenses. Barbara argues that the chancellor improperly calculated David’s average monthly income by taking into account a decline in David’s business. As we have already addressed this issue in Section I of this opinion, we will not further elaborate. The chancellor did not err in determining David’s monthly income to be $19,000. Also under the first factor, Barbara alleges that the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard by noting that both parties would have to adjust their monthly expenses as a result of the divorce. In Gray v. Gray,
¶ 30. The second factor is the health and earning capacities of the parties. Barbara claims it was error for the chancellor to increase her earning capacity from what it currently was in light of her medical issues, age, and inexperience while decreasing David’s earning capacity from his past earnings even though he has no serious medical issues. While David’s health may not have decreased his earning capacity, the chancellor found that his earning capacity would be decreased by the loss of a substantial client. The chancellor also found that while Barbara’s health will impact her employment prospects, she is a licensed attorney with significant mediation experience, an interest in returning to work, and a need to return to work to support herself. We cannot find that he erred in his findings.
¶ 31. Third, the chancellor is to determine the needs of thе parties. Barbara agrees with the chancellor’s finding that David has significant income to support himself, “while Barbara’s reasonable needs will still exceed her current income and future earning capacity.” The chancellor further noted that Barbara cannot support herself solely at this point and will
¶ 82. The next factor the chancellor considered is the obligations and assets of each party. Barbara’s arguments on this issue are that the chancellor erred in: his division of marital property; his valuation of the Living Trust; and his finding that Barbara’s total estate was nearly twice the size of David’s estate. The only argument that we have not previously addressed is the chancellor’s determination that Barbara’s estate was nearly double David’s estate. In his opinion, the chancellor stated that as a result of the equitable distribution of the marital property, both parties received significant assets both liquid and non-liquid in nature. Further, David had no separate estаte, while Barbara had a substantial separate estate in addition to the assets she was awarded through equitable distribution. Barbara’s separate estate was valued at approximately $425,480.41 to $475,480.70, which is almost equal to David’s share of the marital estate. She additionally received approximately $450,836 in her share of the marital estate, for a total estate of between $876,316.41 and $926,316.70. A review of the record supports the chancellor’s findings.
¶ 33. The eighth factor is the parties’ standard of living during the marriage and at the time of divorce. There is no doubt that the parties enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage with many luxuries. The chancellor noted that neither party would be able to continue living at this particular standard due to the divorce and the decline in available income; however, both would still live a very comfortable lifestyle. Barbara argues that the chancellor was incorrect in determining that she would have to lower her standard of living, because there was no proof of David’s decline in income. Because we have addressed the chancellor’s determination of David’s income in Section I of this opinion, we decline to address it here. We find the chancellor properly weighed this factor when awarding alimony.
¶ 34. Next, the chancellor considered the fault or misconduct of the parties. He acknowledged that David admittеd fault and misconduct, but stated that “alimony is not ‘punishment’ for misconduct.” Barbara submits that this factor weighed in her favor and should have been considered in the chancellor’s award of alimony. We cannot find in the record where the chancellor did not consider this factor when awarding Barbara rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony.
¶ 35. The eleventh factor to be considered when awarding alimony is whether there was a wasteful dissipation of assets by either party. “[T]he dictionary definition of ‘dissipate’ is: ‘To spend or expend intemperately or wastefully; squander.’ ” Smith v. Smith,
¶ 36. The final factor to be considered is whether there is any other factor deemed to be just and equitable. The chancellor found that none wеre present; however, Barbara submits that the chancellor did not thoroughly consider her expenses in determining the amount of alimony, nor did the chancellor properly consider her potential earning capacity in conjunction with her illnesses. Because we addressed both issues in this section, we will not address these issues again.
¶ 37. In summary, after a thorough review of the record and the chancellor’s decision, we cannot find that the chancellor improperly weighed the Armstrong factors when awarding Barbara permanent periodic alimony.
B. Rehabilitative Alimony
¶ 38. Barbara also challenges the chancellor’s award of rehabilitative alimony of $2,000 per month for sixty months. Barbara asserts that the chancellor’s finding of her potential income to be $3,500 per month was severely out-of-line with her prior and current earnings and was not supported by evidence. She testified that her then-current monthly income was $648. Further, Barbara claims that her health issues, age, and inexperience as a lawyer would make it almost impossible for her to find employment that would provide her with $3,500 per month.
¶ 39. Rehabilitative alimony is not used to equalize the parties’ incomes, but is awarded to assist one party in rejoining the working world and becoming self-sufficient. See Rhodes v. Rhodes,
¶ 40. These issues involving the award of alimony are without merit.
IV. CHILD SUPPORT
¶ 41. On the issue of the amount of child support awarded, Barbara submits that the chancellor improperly deviated from the statute and awarded less than required by statute. Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-19-101(1) (Rev.2009) provides that fourteen percent of the pay- or’s adjusted gross income should be awarded for the benefit of one child. Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-19-101(2) (Rev.2009) permits the chancellor to deviate from the above percentage upon “a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate[.]” Further, Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-19-101(4) (Rev.2009) provides that “[i]n cases in which the adjusted gross income ... is more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) ..., the court shall make a written finding in the record as to whether or not the application of the guidelines established in this section is reasonable.”
¶ 42. In the current case, the chancellor deviated from the statutorily required amount of fourteen percent by awarding $400 per month in child support for Ann Hamilton, the only minor child the time of the divorce; Ann Hamilton has since reached the age of majority. In his written opinion, the chancellor found that Ann Hamilton had the use of a vehicle, an almost completed undergraduate degree, personal assets such as jewelry and clothes, and three bank accounts. He further wrote: “Taking into consideration the total available assets of David, Barbara[,] and Ann Hamilton, as well as the shared parenting arrangement, and Ann Hamilton’s current level of self-sufficiency, [the chancellor] finds that the application of the statutory guidelines is not reasonable.” We find that the chancellor did not exceed his authority in deviating from the statutory guidelines.
¶ 43. This issue is without merit.
V. ATTORNEY’S FEES
¶ 44. Barbara argues on appeal that the chancellor erred in failing to award her the cost of her attorney’s fees. She alleges that “[i]t was clearly error for the [chancery c]ourt to deny her request for [attorney’s fees,] which were substantially higher because of David’s pattern of deceit and delay tactics.... ”
¶ 45. The decision to award attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the chancellor. Cheatham v. Cheatham,
¶ 46. This issue is without merit.
¶ 47. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
Notes
. At the time of the final judgment, Ann Hamilton was the only minor child. Mary Cameron had reached the age of majority.
. Barbara also argues that David's actual share of the marital estate should be $639,491 since the full price of the Grayhawk home of $311,000 should have been included in his marital estate instead of just the equity value. As we discuss in paragraph 18, the chancellor did not err in valuing and classifying the Grayhawk home; therefore, we will not address this point of her argument. According to the chancellor, the final sum of David’s share of the marital estate was $443,606 after $10,000 in Ole Miss tickets and $62,000 in attorney’s fees were credited to his estate.
. Barbara did not challenge the chancellor’s findings on factor five, the length of the marriage; factor six, the presence or absence of minor children in the home; and factor seven, the age of the parties.
. Barbara also did not challenge factor nine, the tax consequences.