Case Name: Dale A. JENKINS, Respondent, v. Earl WENIG, Defendant, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-04-29
Citations: 103 S.W.3d 380
Docket Number: No. WD 61526
Parties: Dale A. JENKINS, Respondent, v. Earl WENIG, Defendant, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge, PAUL M. SPINDEN, Judge, and JAMES M. SMART, JR., Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 103
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
Dale A. JENKINS, Respondent, v. Earl WENIG, Defendant, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
No. WD 61526.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
April 29, 2003.
M. Courtney Roger, Kansas City, for Appellant.
Andrew Jay Gelbach, Warrensburg, Dana Mark Harris, Kansas City, for Defendant.
Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge, PAUL M. SPINDEN, Judge, and JAMES M. SMART, JR., Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
American Family Mutual Insurance Company appeals the decision of the circuit court denying its motion to order satisfaction of judgment as to approximately fifteen dollars of post-judgment interest. Plaintiffs, Dale and Kathy Jenkins, filed satisfactions of judgment indicating that American Family satisfied its judgment obligations except as to interest owed from the time judgment was entered until the judgment was paid, approximately one month later. American Family argues that it owes the plaintiffs no interest from the time judgment was entered until it was paid because it made an unconditional tender of the agreed-upon amount to the plaintiffs before the judgment was entered.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The circuit court's denial of American Family's motion to order satisfaction of judgment as to interest is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). We also deny the plaintiffs' motion for damages under Supreme Court Rule 84.19.