follows: ($3,000,000 x 0.11) 4- (365 days x 350 days) 4- 2 = $158,217.50. 9 . Meekers’ insistence that "there were no pleadings” at issue against them, begs the question. When Meekers were joined as counterclaim defendants on March 6, 1997, the issues pending were Defendants’ counterclaims against Bydalek. Accordingly, Meek-ers and Bydalek were the only parties with a common interest, i.e., to successfully defend against Defendants’ counterclaims. Although Defendants’ counterclaims sought no direct relief against Meekers, we have previously held that the resolution of those issues had the potential for adversely affecting Meekers. 10 .All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (1999) unless otherwise indicated. 11 . See Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 688 (Mo.banc 1978)
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review holding it is fundamental error in briefing to group numerous incidents of error into a single point relied on where the incidents of error do not relate to a single issue holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error recognizing plain or fundamental error