club known as Club Rush. The chancellor considered these failed business ventures and found that these ventures were known of and consented to by Charles. The chancellor also considered Latresa's one-time $10,000 loss in the stock market *808 while day trading stock on the Internet, without Charles' knowledge or consent. The chancellor did not consider Latresa's Internet day trading to be sufficient to deny an award of alimony, because the incident was an isolated incident in a long marriage.
¶ 26. Charles also believes the chancellor's alimony award was in error because he claims that Latresa has marketable job skills. However, the testimony showed that Latresa has very little education or work experience. She completed only one year of community college, and she did not work for most ofthe marriage.
¶ 27. The chancellor considered and applied the Armstrong factors when he awarded periodic alimony to Latresa. Therefore, we affirm.

IV. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN PLACING A JUDICIAL LIEN ON CHARLES' HOME TO SECURE PAYMENT OF CHARLES' INTEREST IN HERMETIC
¶ 28. Before Charles and Latresa came to trial, Charles paid $11,980 for Latresa's share of the home's equity. Charles took exclusive use, possession, and ownership of the home, and the parties stipulated that the marital home was no longer considered marital property. However, the chancellor placed a judicial lien on the home in Latresa's favor to secure the $89,000 payment for Latresa's interest in Hermetic.
¶ 29. Charles infers that the chancellor acted arbitrarily and capriciously by extending the parties' legal relationship. Charles correctly notes that a division