8. Any other factor which in equity should be considered.Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 366-67 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). ¶ 23.
“As long as the chancellor follows [Armstrong 's] general standard, the amount of the award is largely within his discretion.” Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 366 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (quoting Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss.1990)). The chancellor's underlying factual findings will not be set aside unless “clearly erroneous.”
¶ 19. While it is true that there is caselaw supporting Susan's position that she presented sufficient evidence of her inability to pay her fees based on her unemployment, a lack of a separate estate, the award of few liquid assets, and the shortfall already existing between her expenses and income, we note that “an award of attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the [chancery] court[.]” Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So.2d 363, 368 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1282 ). “Absent [an] abuse of discretion, the [chancery court]'s decision in such matters will generally be upheld.” Id.
While it is true that there is caselaw supporting Susan's position that she presented sufficient evidence of her inability to pay her fees based on her unemployment, a lack of a separate estate, the award of few liquid assets, and the shortfall already existing between her expenses and income, we note that "an award of attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the [chancery] court[.]" Klauser v. Klauser, 865 So. 2d 363, 368 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Armstrong, 618 So. 2d at 1282). "Absent [an] abuse of discretion, the [chancery court]'s decision in such matters will generally be upheld.