Case ID: sw3d_386/html/0911-01.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

Janette L. DUNHAM, Respondent, v. Mark J. DUNHAM, Appellant.
    No. ED 97998.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Dec. 4, 2012.
    Jeffrey Paul Medler, David Alan Roither, Co-Counsel, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
    Christopher Karlen, Growe, Eisen, Kar-len, LLC, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
    Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark J. Dunham (Husband) appeals from the judgment denying his motion to amend judgment or for new trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).