Opinion ID: 1697830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: On the Record Analysis of the Albright Factors.

Text: ¶ 27. Jane argues that the chancellor did not make an on-the-record analysis of the Albright [7] factors and that his failure to do so constitutes reversible error. See Powell v. Ayars, 792 So.2d 240, 244 (Miss.2001) (remanding case to chancellor for failure to make findings on each applicable Albright factor). Jane notes that the chancellor did not read into the record his reasoning under Albright for awarding custody to Tom. She argues that the chancellor's articulation of the Albright factors in the Revised Decree for Divorce is not sufficient to be considered an on-the-record finding and that even if this Court determines the chancellor's written findings were made on-the-record, he did not provide a legally sufficient analysis of each factor, as this Court has mandated in Powell and subsequent cases. ¶ 28. Although the initial Decree for Divorce, which was prepared by Tom's counsel, did not make specific factual findings under Albright, the revised decree did. The revised decree specifically listed each of the applicable Albright factors, noted the facts which applied to each factor, and stated whether a particular factor weighed in favor of Tom, Jane, or neither party. We find that the chancellor's written findings in the Revised Decree for Divorce are sufficient to constitute an on-the-record finding and Jane's argument is wholly without merit and borders on a frivolous claim.