Opinion
No. ED 96377.
2012-04-10
WEI WU, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. ACE CANADA a/k/a Ace Ina Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellant.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Mark H. Neill, Judge. Richard A. Day, Hennessy & Roach, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Michael D. Stokes, Devereaux, Stokes, Nolan, Fernandez & Leonard, P.C., James Peter Leonard, Gonzalo Andres Fernandez, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Application for Transfer
Denied July 3, 2012.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Mark H. Neill, Judge.
Richard A. Day, Hennessy & Roach, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Michael D. Stokes, Devereaux, Stokes, Nolan, Fernandez & Leonard, P.C., James Peter Leonard, Gonzalo Andres Fernandez, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ace Canada a/k/a Ace Ina Insurance Company (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered in this garnishment action after a bench trial finding Appellant liable to pay an earlier judgment issued to Wei Wu (Respondent) in the amount of $11,345,681.38. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in its judgment, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976), or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to amend its pleadings. Dye v. Division of Child Support Enforcement Dept. of Social Services, State of Mo., 811 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Mo.banc 1991). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).