Case Name: Jeffry L. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Carol W. ANDERSON, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-09-17
Citations: 125 S.W.3d 320
Docket Number: No. ED 80472
Parties: Jeffry L. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Carol W. ANDERSON, Respondent.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 125
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
Jeffry L. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Carol W. ANDERSON, Respondent.
No. ED 80472.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Sept. 17, 2002.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 14, 2002.
Gary M. Siegel, Seigel Sevastianos L.L.P., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Morton R. Newman, Newman, Frey-man, Klein & Gamache, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jeffry L. Anderson (Husband) appeals the judgment of the trial court granting a motion to enforce compliance with the decree of dissolution in favor of Carol A. Wolf, f/k/a Carol W. Anderson (Wife). The trial court found that Wife was entitled to $20,000 plus interest at the statuto ry rate of nine percent per annum for a total judgment of $20,986 to be transferred in cash from Husband's Edward D. Jones Individual Retirement Account.
On appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred in granting Wife's motion to enforce compliance with the decree of dissolution and in entering a judgment that divided an individual retirement account based upon an award that had taken place more than eight months prior, because the trial court should have considered the gain or loss in value of the individual retirement account in calculating the parties' interest therein.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).