Anderson v. Anderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. Anderson

125 S.W.3d 320, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2002 WL 31056679

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80472

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.W.3d 320 (Anderson v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Anderson, 125 S.W.3d 320, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2002 WL 31056679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

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[321]*321ry 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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[321]*321ry 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.3d 320, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2002 WL 31056679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-anderson-moctapp-2002.