Case ID: sw3d_368/html/0214-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEI WU, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. ACE CANADA a/k/a Ace Ina Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. ED 96377.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    March 6, 2012.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 10, 2012.
    Application for Transfer Denied July 3, 2012.
    Richard A. Day, Hennessy & Roach, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Michael D. Stokes, Devereaux, Stokes, Nolan, Fernandez & Leonard, P.C., James Peter Leonard, Gonzalo Andres Fernandez, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ace Canada a/k/a Ace Ina Insurance Company (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in this garnishment action after a bench trial finding Appellant liable to pay an earlier judgment issued to Wei Wu (Respondent) in the amount of $11,345,681.38. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in its judgment, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to amend its pleadings. Dye v. Division of Child Support Enforcement Dept. of Social Services, State of Mo., 811 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Mo.banc 1991). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).