The chancellor's letter ruling was a worthy attempt to clarify and explain the matters in the accompanying decree and to set out, mathematically, the ultimate division of property between the parties. By inadvertently failing to consider this large amount as part of his mathematical calculations,the chancellor's valuation of the company's assets, as assigned to appellant, was erroneously inflated. Obviously the four abovementioned properties sold for more than the value of their engineered reserves. However, we cannot say that those sales created a reasonable basis for the chancellor to virtually take judicial notice that the value of the company's remaining reserves should be enhanced. There was no testimony at trial that, as a matter of custom or practice, the value of oil and gas properties is to be calculated by adding an enhanced value based on past sale prices.
Predictability is favored over mere surmise in the valuation of marital property.
We acknowledge that our state's property division statute does not compel mathematical precision in property distribution but only requires that property be distributed equitably. Further, the chancellor is vested with a measure of flexibility in apportioning total assets, and the critical inquiry is how the total assets are divided. However, the problem here is not the percentage distributed to each party but the erroneous calculation of the value of an asset assigned to appellant. Because we find errors in the chancellor's division of marital property, we reverse and remand to allow the chancellor to redivide the property in light of the considerations expressed in this opinion. See Grace v. Grace,supra .