Hero is out of position with KKxx against Villain in a local Omaha cash game. Play proceeds to river, and Villain bets to put Hero all-in. Hero suspects busted draw and calls.
Hero turns over kings, but not the other two cards. Villain shows all four cards. Dealer then mucks all 4 of Villain's cards, and the two kings. As the dealer starts pushing the pot towards Hero, then pauses. Hero throws remaining two cards, still face down, into muck over the pot being pushed to him.
Dealer then announces "you must show four cards to win," and says Villain should win the pot. Hero counters with the fact that she mucked Villain's hand first, and that means his cards were dead, and Dealer was already pushing the pot toward Hero. Furthermore, she had already mucked the two kings, signifying that the hand was over. There is no dispute over the cards and who had the better hand.
The rules, so far as I know them, say that in the event of a mucked winning hand, the highest live hand takes the pot. However, in this situation, there is no live hand, since Villain's hand was mucked before Hero's. Hero contends that, after mucking all four of Villain's cards, Hero wins by default, and this is a mistake by the dealer that shouldn't affect the outcome (dealer should have waited until all four of Hero's cards were shown before mucking the hands). Who should win the pot in this situation?
Here's the additional twist: the Villain in this situation is also the game-runner, playing in his own game (this is not an unusual situation at this game).
As it turns out, the game-runner decided to split the pot between himself and Hero, and Hero grudgingly accepts the verdict, as he expects that the game-runner is not going to voluntarily give up the whole pot to his opponent.
How would you award the pot in this situation?