stating that “this court has urged trial courts to use the terminology contained in § 30-3-151 when crafting custody judgments” but holding that a judgment awarding the" parties joint custody *372 with one parent having primary physical custody “should be interpreted as awarding the parties joint legal custody of the children and awarding [that one parent] sole physical custody of the children”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “this court has urged trial courts to use the terminology contained in § 30-3-151 when crafting custody judgments” but holding that a judgment awarding the" parties joint custody *372 with one parent having primary physical custody “should be interpreted as awarding the parties joint legal custody of the children and awarding [that one parent] sole physical custody of the children”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOORE, Judge,
concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result.
I concur in the result to affirm the trial court’s determination that the Collinsville property was marital property subject to division in Part III.B. of the main opinion, and I concur in the result to affirm as to paragraph six of the divorce judgment in Part IV of the main opinion. I concur in the remainder of the main opinion.