Case Name: Janette L. DUNHAM, Respondent, v. Mark J. DUNHAM, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-12-04
Citations: 386 S.W.3d 911
Docket Number: No. ED 97998
Parties: Janette L. DUNHAM, Respondent, v. Mark J. DUNHAM, Appellant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 386
Pages: 911–911

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).