Loren Macke, Pamela Eden v. Austin Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865

Decedent Nicklaus Macke (25) died in a 2017 motor-vehicle collision; his parents are Pamela Eden (mother) and Loren Macke (father).
Macke negotiated and accepted a $500,000 insurance settlement on behalf of the wrongful-death claim and filed for court approval and apportionment under Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 537.080, .090, .095.
Eden (an Alabama resident) received notice of the hearing a month before; an initial continuance was granted after her telephonic request; at the rescheduled hearing Eden’s newly retained counsel orally sought a second continuance the morning of the hearing.
The circuit court denied the second continuance, heard testimony from family members, and took apportionment under advisement; it later awarded $490,000 (98%) to Macke and $10,000 (2%) to Eden.
Eden appealed, arguing denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion and the 2% apportionment was legally erroneous and against the weight of the evidence.
The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed: no abuse of discretion on the continuance; apportionment was consistent with § 537.090, supported by the trial court’s credibility determinations, and not against the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eden)	Defendant's Argument (Macke)	Held
Whether denial of Eden’s oral motion for a second continuance was an abuse of discretion	Newly retained counsel lacked time for discovery/preparation; denial prejudiced Eden	Eden had over a month’s notice, previously received one continuance, motion not in writing or accompanied by affidavit as Rule 65.03 requires; witnesses had traveled	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; oral motion noncompliant with Rule 65.03 and court reasonably exercised discretion
Whether apportionment of wrongful-death settlement (2% to Eden, 98% to Macke) was erroneous or against the weight of the evidence	Trial court misapplied law or undervalued Eden’s loss; evidence showed a reunited/strong relationship deserving greater share	Trial court applied § 537.090 factors, credited Macke’s primary caretaker role and regular contact; Eden’s proof of relationship was limited	Apportionment upheld: court considered statutory factors, made credibility determinations, and award was not against the weight of the evidence

State v. Blocker, 133 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. banc) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance rulings)
Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases — substantial evidence/against weight/erroneous application of law)
Parr v. Parr, 16 S.W.3d 332 (Mo. banc) (discussing apportionment under wrongful-death statutes)
Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc) (weight-of-evidence review guidance)
Arbors at Sugar Creek Homeowners Ass'n v. Jefferson Bank & Trust Co., 464 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. banc) (deference to trial court on contested facts)
Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc) (appellate court must not reweigh evidence)
Farr v. Schoeneman, 702 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. App.) (discussed in opinion for historical context on misapplied review language)
Dodd v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, 193 S.W.2d 905 (Mo.) (source of remittitur language later misapplied to apportionment)