Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to their rental property; (4) whether the chancellor erred in awarding alimony; (5) whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorneys’ fees; and (6) whether the chancellor erred in requiring him to maintain a $200,000 life insurance policy for Becky’s benefit. We address these issues in turn below. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶'26. “When reviewing a decision of a chancellor, this Court applies a limited abuse of discretion standard of review.” Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806, 810 (¶ 14) (Miss.2003). “This Court will not disturb the chancellor’s opinion when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Id. at 819 (¶ 53); accord Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 608, 609 (Miss.1990) (<HOLDING>). However, chancellor’s conclusions on pure 
 Holding statements: (A) holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous (B) holding that a chancellors finding of fact will not be reversed unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous (C) holding that the bankruptcy court abuses or exceeds its discretion when 1 its decision rests on an error of law such as application of the wrong legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding or 2 its decision  though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding  cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions (D) holding that decisions that lie within the trial courts discretion are to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous (E) holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous
Output (English): holding that the bankruptcy court abuses or exceeds its discretion when 1 its decision rests on an error of law such as application of the wrong legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding or 2 its decision  though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding  cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions