Payne v. Markeson
414 S.W.3d 530
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- In Sept. 2009 Ashley Markeson (driving with BAC .166 and on DUI probation) struck Virginia Payne, causing severe fractures and permanent impairment; Markeson pleaded guilty to second-degree assault.
- Payne sued Markeson (negligence and punitive damages) and MM Investments (dram-shop). Payne and MM Investments settled for $475,000; MM Investments was dismissed pretrial.
- Markeson sought leave pretrial to amend her answer to assert an affirmative defense under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.060 (reduce verdict by co‑defendant settlement). The court granted leave to amend but initially denied a separate reduction motion as moot.
- Jury awarded $350,000 compensatory and $700,000 punitive damages. After judgment, Markeson filed a Motion to Reduce the Verdict (for $475,000) and a Motion for Remittitur; the court later ruled it lacked jurisdiction to decide the reduction motion because of post‑trial timing. Markeson appealed.
- The court of appeals held the Motion to Reduce was effectively an authorized motion to amend the judgment, so the trial court retained jurisdiction to decide it (90 days from the last timely after‑trial motion). The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to rule on the § 537.060 reduction; it affirmed the punitive award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Payne) | Defendant's Argument (Markeson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to rule on post‑trial Motion to Reduce the Verdict | The reduction motion was not one of the authorized after‑trial motions and, if it were, it was filed too early so 90‑day jurisdiction had expired | The motion was substantively a Rule 78.04 motion to amend the judgment; because a timely motion for new trial was filed later, the court had jurisdiction for 90 days after that last timely motion | Court held motion was an authorized post‑trial motion to amend; trial court retained jurisdiction until 90 days after the last timely after‑trial motion and thus erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the Motion to Reduce the Verdict was an "authorized" after‑trial motion | The reduction was procedural and did not extend jurisdiction | The substance sought correction of the judgment (reduce by co‑defendant settlement) and thus is treated as a motion to amend under Rule 78.04 | Court held substance controls; the motion effectively was a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 78.04 |
| Whether Markeson properly pleaded and proved the § 537.060 affirmative defense (entitlement to reduction by $475,000) | Argued defendant failed to plead/prove reduction timely and cannot benefit from dram‑shop settlement | Markeson filed for leave to amend pretrial, attached proposed amended answer, informed court of settlement amount, and satisfied pleading/proof requirements; settlement was undisputed | Court held Markeson properly pleaded and preserved the § 537.060 defense and the reduction issue should be decided by the court (not the jury) where settlement facts are undisputed |
| Whether punitive damages ($700,000) were excessive and required remittitur | Payne defended award as appropriate given severity/reprehensibility | Markeson argued punitive award was excessive, motivated by passion/prejudice, and disproportionate to compensatory damages and her punishment | Court affirmed trial court’s denial of remittitur: punitive award (2x compensatory) was not an abuse of discretion given reprehensibility, harm, and comparable precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- McCracken v. Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012) (elements and burden for § 537.060 reduction affirmative defense)
- McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. App. 2012) (treating a post‑verdict reduction claim as a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 78.04)
- Massman Constr. Co. v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 914 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1996) (liberal construction of improperly titled after‑trial motions)
- Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. banc 1996) (standards for punitive damages review)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (constitutional guideposts for grossly excessive punitive awards)