the property remained marital property until there was a court-ordered dissolution or a “valid written agreement” of the parties. Preston v. Preston, 189 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Mo.App. W.D.2006). There was no valid written agreement and a physical division of the property was not binding upon the court. The court was not obligated to credit Husband with any amount, thus, it was not error to subtract any sum from the amount Husband was to pay Wife prior to the equalization award. Husband has not contended that the overall property distribution was inequitable. See In re Marriage of Altergott, 259 S.W.3d 608, 620-21 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (finding calculation error from misapplication of the law was not prejudicial to husband); Calhoun v. Calhoun, 156 S.W.3d 410, 416-18 (Mo.App. S.D.2005)(<HOLDING>). Point V is denied. The judgment is affirmed.
holding trial court erred in finding purported wife unavailable to testify and admitting her sworn prior statements in lieu of her live testimony where record did not support courts ruling in light of its own finding that remarriage of wife and defendant was fraudulent and wife did not refuse to testify if claim of privilege was denied holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court holding wife was not prejudiced by the trial courts refusal to consider the tax consequences of assets awarded to her in part because it did not affect the overall property distribution holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees holding that the trial court erred in valuing the wifes jewelry at 10000 and distributing that amount to her as part of her share of marital assets where the only testimony as to the value of the jewelry came from the husband and concluding that the husbands unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry that was not definitively described is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife