of marital misconduct. We find the trial court did not err in finding no marital misconduct that impacted the judgment. Wife next argues the trial court failed to consider all of the marital assets in its division of marital property. Specifically, wife argues the 1993 Dodge Caravan was actually wife’s separate property and the trial court did not consider certain items husband purchased after the separation. Wife argues the 1993 Dodge Caravan was her separate property because husband had gifted it to her. However, wife listed the 1993 Dodge Caravan as marital property on her First Amended Financial Statement. Therefore, even if the trial court did err in treating the vehicle as marital property, it was “invited error.” See Kettler v. Kettler, 884 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Mo.App. E.D.1994) (<HOLDING>). Wife further argues the trial court did not
holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error holding invited error doctrine bars appellant from appealing the admission of evidence where appellant invited the error by being the first to introduce the evidence thus injecting the issue into tjie case