Missouri debt defense
Last updated May 2026
This guide shows you the deadline, possible defenses, and leverage points that matter in Missouri. If you already have your summons, Answered can extract the case details and draft your filing-formatted Answer.
You have 30 days to respond.
The 30-day deadline applies to full circuit court cases. Small claims and associate circuit cases require appearance at the hearing date, not a written Answer.
Answer Packet $60. Full Defense $99. Document Review $99 where available.
Orientation
Missouri has two state-distinctive defense mechanisms operating together. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (adopted June 28, 2017, effective JANUARY 1, 2018, corrected by order December 18, 2017) is a facial-pleading rule requiring debt-buyer complaints filed on or after that date to recite verbatim or attach the assignment(s) and other written documents establishing ownership of the debt. Rule 55.22(d) authorizes SUA-SPONTE dismissal — Missouri courts may dismiss non-compliant complaints on their own initiative without a defendant motion. Joins the facial-pleading-rule cluster with NJ R. 6:3-2(c), IN § 24-5-15.5, IL Rule 280, NY CCFA § 3016(j), TX Rule 508.2, MN § 548.101 — but the sua-sponte dismissal authority is structurally distinctive among facial-pleading rules. Combined with the FAA-not-state-UAA arbitration framework: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 explicitly excludes contracts of adhesion from MO Uniform Arbitration Act coverage; FAA preempts the exclusion under Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1985). UNIQUE in this site's registry — the only state where defendants compelling arbitration MUST file under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA), NOT Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355 (MO UAA). Filing under the wrong vehicle could result in denial.
Somebody has filed a lawsuit against you in a Missouri court alleging that you owe money on a consumer debt. The packet is a Summons (the order to respond) plus a Petition (Missouri uses "Petition" rather than "Complaint") with attached exhibits. Service is governed by Mo. R. Civ. P. 54 — typically by sheriff or court-authorized process server. MO has a three-tier civil-court structure: Small Claims (≤$5,000 under Chapter 482) operates as a division of the Associate Circuit Court — APPEARANCE-BASED with simplified procedure, no written Answer required; Associate Circuit ($5,001-$25,000) — limited jurisdiction tier, generally appearance-based with simplified procedure; Circuit Court (>$25,000) — full Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure with the standard 30-day Answer deadline under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25. Most consumer-debt cases land in the appearance-based tiers because typical debt-buyer portfolio purchase tickets fall between $1,000 and $25,000.
MO defendants face a procedurally rich defense profile. Rule 55.22 facial-pleading attack with sua-sponte dismissal authority + Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190 borrowing statute (importing foreign-state shorter SOL when cause of action accrued elsewhere and is fully barred there) + § 516.120(1) 5-year default SOL + Missouri Merchandising Practices Act with Jackson v. Barton, 548 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2018), Missouri Supreme Court appellate authority establishing MMPA application to debt-collection conduct + the FAA-vehicle-requirement. Combined leverage: facial-pleading defects supporting court-initiated dismissal, MMPA discretionary punitive damages capped at greater of $500K or 5× actual under MO general punitive cap, and the procedural-vehicle distinction at arbitration.
Your deadline
The 30-day Answer deadline under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25 applies ONLY to full Circuit Court cases (>$25,000). Calendar days. The clock runs from the date the plaintiff completed service. Mo. R. Civ. P. 44.01 governs computation. If Day 30 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline rolls forward, but do not rely on it. File by Day 27.
For Small Claims and Associate Circuit cases — APPEARANCE-BASED. The 30-day Answer deadline does NOT apply. The Summons sets a hearing date — typically 30-60 days after filing. The defendant must APPEAR at the hearing or face automatic judgment. Procedure is informal. Verify the procedural track from the case caption before assuming written-Answer mechanics. Comparable in spirit to VA Track 1 / Track 2 distinction.
CRITICAL FIRST CHECK before drafting (Circuit Court) or preparing for the hearing (lower tiers). Examine the petition for Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 compliance. Does the petition recite verbatim or attach the assignment(s) and other ownership documents? Missing documentation supports Rule 55.22(d) SUA-SPONTE dismissal — MO courts may dismiss non-compliant petitions on their own initiative. Rule 55.22 was effective JANUARY 1, 2018 (NOT July 1, 2021 as base entry incorrectly states). Identify the original creditor — Delaware-headquartered (Discover, Barclays, Comenity / Bread Financial, TD Bank USA, PNC), NC-headquartered (Bank of America), or VA-headquartered (Capital One) issuer triggers § 516.190 borrowing of a 3-year foreign SOL.
Default judgment in MO. The court enters default for the alleged amount plus court costs and statutory post-judgment interest. MO judgments are valid for 10 years renewable indefinitely under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 511.370 by scire facias — comparable to AZ/IN/MI/IL/WI 10-year frameworks; less than VA/NJ 20-year tied-longest exposure and KY 15-year. Wage garnishment under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 525.030 follows the federal floor (25%) for non-heads; defendant-favorable HEAD-OF-FAMILY exception (10%) if defendant is BOTH head of family AND Missouri resident. NOT a categorical bar like TX/NC/PA. Setting aside default under Mo. R. Civ. P. 74.05(d) requires "good cause" and "meritorious defense" — discretionary with the trial court.
Filing mechanics. Missouri Courts Case.net e-Filing widely supported. § 514.040 in-forma-pauperis fee waiver available.
Product preview
Answered starts with the Answer packet, then lets you upload papers for a deeper proof checklist, possible defense issues, and available self-help documents.
Build Answer PacketDeadline found
Missouri: answer due soon
Plaintiff
Debt buyer
Documents
Answer + next filings
Case Plan
The court system
MO has a three-tier civil-court structure for consumer-debt cases.
Small Claims (≤$5,000 under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 482) operates as a division of the Associate Circuit Court. APPEARANCE-BASED — defendant must appear at the hearing date set in the summons (no written Answer required). Procedure is informal. Comparable in spirit to MN's Conciliation Court, VA's General District Court return-date system, NJ's Special Civil Part Small Claims sub-track, AZ's Small Claims sub-track of Justice Court, and KY's Small Claims under § 24A.230. Rule 55.22 still applies substantively to assigned-claim cases (Small Claims petitions filed by debt buyers must comply with the recite-verbatim-or-attach requirement). § 516.120(1) SOL still applies. § 516.190 borrowing still applies.
Associate Circuit ($5,001-$25,000) is the default tier for most MO consumer-debt cases. Most debt-buyer portfolio purchase tickets land between $1,000 and $25,000. APPEARANCE-BASED for many case types — limited jurisdiction tier with simplified procedure. Verify local court rules for the specific Associate Circuit Court before assuming procedure. Mo. R. Civ. P. apply with modifications.
Circuit Court (>$25,000) applies the full Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure with the standard 30-day Answer deadline under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25, full discovery under Mo. R. Civ. P. 56-58, and formal motion practice including Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27 motions to dismiss, Mo. R. Civ. P. 74.04 summary judgment, and Mo. R. Civ. P. 74.05 setting aside default.
The MO-distinctive procedural posture: TWO-TIER PROCEDURAL STRUCTURE comparable to VA Track 1/Track 2. Small Claims and Associate Circuit cases require defendants to APPEAR at the hearing rather than file a written Answer; Circuit Court cases require the standard 30-day written Answer. Verify the procedural track before drafting any response. CRITICAL: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (effective JANUARY 1, 2018 — NOT July 1, 2021 as the base entry incorrectly states) applies in ALL three tiers — debt-buyer petitions filed on or after January 1, 2018 must attach OR recite verbatim BOTH the assignment(s) AND other written documents establishing ownership. Rule 55.22(d) authorizes SUA-SPONTE dismissal — structurally distinctive among facial-pleading rules. MO procedural attack tools: Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27(a)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (comparable to federal Rule 12(b)(6)), Mo. R. Civ. P. 56 summary judgment.
Statute of limitations
Missouri’s statute of limitations on debt is 5 years, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120. The clock typically runs from: date of last payment or last charge, whichever is later.
If the time-bar has run, the debt may not be legally collectible in court — but you generally have to raise the defense yourself. It is not raised automatically.
Compare this entry with the national debt lawsuit deadline and statute-of-limitations table.
For the old-debt defense specifically, open the Missouri statute-of-limitations hub entry.
Your rights
The one thing most people miss
Key fact
Missouri's Rule 55.22 (effective January 1, 2018) requires debt buyers to attach assignment documents proving the complete chain of ownership to their complaint. If those documents are missing, you can challenge the case.
The framework
Concise summaries below. Use these as issue-spotting prompts tied to your user-confirmed facts and court papers.
Statute of limitations and the § 516.190 borrowing statute
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(1) (5-year SOL on accounts and credit cards); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190 (borrowing statute — "fully barred" mechanism); 10 Del. C. § 8106 (Delaware 3-year SOL); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1) (NC 3-year SOL); Va. Code § 8.01-246(2) (VA 3-year SOL)
MO has a 5-year SOL on accounts and credit cards under § 516.120(1). The clock runs from breach — typically the date of last payment or last charge, whichever is later. Already shorter than most registry states' 6-year defaults (IN, AZ, MI, PA, MN, NJ, WI, IL, OH, VA all 6-year), comparable to Kentucky. § 516.190 borrowing statute imports a foreign state's shorter SOL when cause of action accrued elsewhere AND is FULLY BARRED under that state's law. Most major credit-card issuers are Delaware-headquartered (Discover, Barclays, Comenity / Bread Financial, TD Bank USA, PNC) with Delaware's 3-year SOL — § 516.190 imports the bar. Bank of America (Charlotte, NC) imports North Carolina's 3-year SOL. Capital One (McLean, VA) imports Virginia's 3-year SOL. Comparable in mechanism to KY § 413.320, PA § 5521(b), OH § 2305.03, IL § 13-210; OPPOSITE of AZ § 12-548 explicit choice-of-law rejection. MO courts take judicial notice of foreign-state law for borrowing-statute purposes — the borrowing operates without affirmative pleading.
Read the full breakdown →Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 debt-buyer pleading rule
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (adopted June 28, 2017, effective January 1, 2018, corrected December 18, 2017); Rule 55.22(d) (sua-sponte dismissal authority); Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27(a)(6)
CRITICAL EFFECTIVE-DATE CORRECTION: Rule 55.22 was adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court on June 28, 2017, effective JANUARY 1, 2018 (corrected by order December 18, 2017) — NOT July 1, 2021 as the base entry states. Pillar uses verified correct date; this cornerstone correction operates additively without modifying the base entry. The rule requires that the assignment(s) or other written document(s) establishing the debt and ownership of the debt shall be RECITED VERBATIM in the pleading OR attached to the pleading as exhibits. Same standard for attorney-fee claims. Rule 55.22(d) authorizes the court to dismiss without prejudice for non-compliance — UPON MOTION OR SUA SPONTE. Sua-sponte dismissal authority is STRUCTURALLY DISTINCTIVE among facial-pleading rules in this registry — most other facial-pleading rules require defendant motion practice. Comparable in core function to NJ R. 6:3-2(c), IN § 24-5-15.5, IL Rule 280, NY CCFA § 3016(j), TX Rule 508.2, MN § 548.101. Procedural attack via Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27(a)(6) motion to dismiss; sua-sponte authority means MO courts may dismiss non-compliant petitions before the defendant responds.
Read the full breakdown →MMPA, Jackson v. Barton, and FDCPA counterclaims
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.010-407.130 (MMPA); § 407.020 (substantive prohibition); § 407.025 (private right of action); Jackson v. Barton, 548 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2018); 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (federal FDCPA)
MMPA § 407.020 declares unlawful "deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise." § 407.025 supplies the private right of action for consumer purchasers/lessees with ascertainable loss. Jackson v. Barton, 548 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2018), is Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) authority establishing three holdings: (1) "efforts to collect payment" = "in connection with" the underlying merchandise sale within § 407.020; (2) FDCPA rolling-violation SOL principle; (3) plaintiff-generated binding authority. Same pattern as Conway v. PRA (KY), Green v. PRA (VA), Pounds v. PRA (NC), Young v. Midland Funding (CA), Mertola v. Santos (AZ), Rock Creek v. Tibbett (IN), Taylor v. First Resolution (OH), Brownbark II (MI). MMPA remedies: actual damages; DISCRETIONARY punitive damages capped at greater of $500K or 5× actual under MO general punitive-damages cap; DISCRETIONARY attorney's fees; equitable relief; class actions. Stronger than KY KCPA and AZ ACFA; comparable to OH CSPA discretionary treble and IL ICFA discretionary punitive; narrower than NJ NJCFA mandatory treble + mandatory fees. Federal FDCPA stacks cumulatively.
Read the full breakdown →FAA arbitration and Bunge preemption
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 (MO UAA validity provision excluding adhesion contracts); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355 (MO UAA motion to compel — NOT the operative vehicle); 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA motion to compel); Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1985)
UNIQUE in this site's registry. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 explicitly EXCLUDES contracts of adhesion from Missouri UAA coverage. Credit-card cardholder agreements are paradigmatic adhesion contracts. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Missouri statute for contracts involving interstate commerce. Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1985), is Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) authority confirming the preemption principle. Although Bunge specifically addressed § 435.460 notice requirements, the broader holding — "the Missouri Act may not be used to defeat an arbitration provision of a contract which is covered by the FAA" — extends to § 435.350's adhesion contract exclusion through subsequent Missouri court application. CRITICAL PRACTICAL: defendants compelling arbitration in MO MUST file under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA), NOT Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355 (MO UAA motion to compel). Filing under the wrong vehicle could result in denial. Procedurally distinctive but NOT structurally stronger than other states' arbitration frameworks — AAA business-fee abandonment dynamic operates the same way regardless of vehicle.
Read the full breakdown →Why this state
Missouri's defense profile is procedurally rich. Three pillars produce one of the most distinctive defense postures in this site's registry.
First, the COMBINED MECHANISM: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (effective JANUARY 1, 2018) facial-pleading rule + Rule 55.22(d) SUA-SPONTE dismissal authority + Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190 borrowing statute + Jackson v. Barton MMPA-reaches-debt-collection authority. Effective 3-year SOL when borrowing applies + facial-pleading defects supporting court-initiated dismissal + DISCRETIONARY punitive damages on MMPA counterclaim. Rule 55.22(d) sua-sponte dismissal authority is structurally distinctive among facial-pleading rules in the registry — most other rules (NJ R. 6:3-2(c), IN § 24-5-15.5, IL Rule 280, NY CCFA § 3016(j), TX Rule 508.2, MN § 548.101) require defendant motion practice. Jackson v. Barton, 548 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2018), is Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) plaintiff-generated binding authority with three doctrinal holdings: (1) MMPA "in connection with" reach to debt-collection conduct; (2) FDCPA rolling-violation SOL principle; (3) plaintiff-generated authority. Same pattern as Conway v. PRA (KY), Green v. PRA (VA), Pounds v. PRA (NC), Young v. Midland Funding (CA), Mertola v. Santos (AZ), Rock Creek v. Tibbett (IN), Taylor v. First Resolution (OH), Brownbark II (MI).
Second, MMPA discretionary punitive damages — among the stronger state consumer-protection remedy ceilings in the registry. § 407.025 authorizes actual damages, DISCRETIONARY punitive damages (subject to MO general punitive cap of greater of $500K or 5× actual), DISCRETIONARY attorney's fees, and equitable relief. Stronger than KY KCPA and AZ ACFA. Comparable to OH CSPA discretionary treble and IL ICFA discretionary punitive. Narrower than NJ NJCFA mandatory treble + mandatory fees, NC NCDCA § 75-16 trebling + mandatory fees, FL FCCPA § 559.77 mandatory $1,000 + mandatory fees. Upper-middle of registry consumer-protection-remedy spectrum.
Third, FAA-not-state-UAA arbitration framework with Bunge preemption. UNIQUE in this registry. Procedurally distinctive but NOT structurally stronger than other states' arbitration frameworks. Defendants MUST file under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA), NOT Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355.
The parts of MO law that are harder for defendants. Six honest framings.
(1) The 30-day Answer deadline applies ONLY to full Circuit Court cases (>$25K). Most consumer-debt cases land in appearance-based Small Claims (≤$5K) or Associate Circuit ($5,001-$25K) tiers, requiring appearance at the hearing rather than written Answer. Verify the procedural track before drafting strategy.
(2) FAA-vehicle requirement is procedurally distinctive but NOT structurally stronger than other states' arbitration frameworks. Filing under wrong vehicle (MO UAA § 435.355 instead of FAA § 4) could result in denial.
(3) Wage garnishment under § 525.030 is defendant-favorable ONLY for heads of family WHO ARE Missouri residents (10% of disposable earnings). Non-heads or non-residents face the federal floor 25% rule. NOT a categorical bar like TX/NC/PA.
(4) MO judgments valid for 10 years renewable indefinitely by scire facias under § 511.370 — comparable to AZ/IN/MI/IL/WI 10-year frameworks. Less than VA/NJ 20-year tied-longest exposure and KY 15-year. More than FL 5-year renewable.
(5) MO does NOT have an absolute no-revival rule like MN § 541.053. Pre-expiry partial payment can restart the clock under common-law revival principles.
(6) MO lacks the structural arbitration enhancements that OH (R.C. § 2711.02(C) immediate-appealability), VA (§ 8.01-380(D) nonsuit-block), and NJ (Atalese clause-enforceability filter) provide.
Bottom line: MO has unusual combined leverage — facial-pleading rule with sua-sponte dismissal authority + MMPA discretionary punitive damages + plaintiff-generated binding authority confirming application + FAA-vehicle distinction. Defense profile is procedurally rich. Where MO exceeds is at the pleading-stage attack (Rule 55.22(d) sua-sponte authority), the consumer-protection remedy ceiling (MMPA punitive + Jackson authority), and the procedural-vehicle distinction (FAA-not-UAA). Where MO matches federal-baseline is at SOL stage (5-year default with borrowing-statute import) and at arbitration leverage (FAA-vehicle distinct but not structurally stronger).
Real case
I do not have a Missouri case to cite as my own. The case I won pro se was Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 — a Wisconsin Small Claims action, not a MO case. The complaint was the standard debt-buyer template: a thin allegation of breach, a generic affidavit, a chain-of-title summary that named no original creditor with specificity, and a copy of a cardholder agreement attached as an exhibit. The cardholder agreement contained a binding arbitration clause naming the American Arbitration Association as the administering forum.
I filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration under Wisconsin's arbitration framework. The court granted the motion and the dispute moved to AAA administration. Under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, the business that wants AAA to administer the arbitration must pay a business filing fee within a specific window. Plaza Services failed to pay the fee. The AAA closed the file for non-compliance. I returned to Eau Claire County and moved to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the arbitration procedure they themselves had invoked. On April 9, 2026, Commissioner Johnson dismissed the case without prejudice.
This playbook transfers to MO under the FAA — with a procedural-vehicle requirement no other state has. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 (MO UAA validity provision) explicitly EXCLUDES contracts of adhesion; the FAA preempts the exclusion under Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1985), for contracts involving interstate commerce. CRITICAL PRACTICAL: defendants compelling arbitration in MO MUST file under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA), NOT Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355 (MO UAA motion to compel). Filing under the wrong vehicle could result in denial. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411 (2022), control the federal-law-preemption analysis — file the motion to compel early. The AAA business-fee abandonment dynamic operates the same way in MO.
The honest framing: transferable playbook with FAA-vehicle requirement, not a MO outcome. UNIQUE in registry — MO is the only state where arbitration must be compelled under federal rather than state authority. Procedurally distinctive but NOT structurally stronger than other states' arbitration frameworks. MO lacks OH § 2711.02(C) immediate-appealability, VA § 8.01-380(D) nonsuit-block, and NJ Atalese clause-enforceability filter. Where MO's real settlement leverage lives is in the cumulative MMPA + FDCPA counterclaim leg under Jackson v. Barton (with discretionary punitive damages capped at greater of $500K or 5× actual) plus the Rule 55.22 facial-pleading attack with sua-sponte dismissal authority. The plaintiff who survives a motion to compel into AAA STILL faces those parallel attacks at the underlying merits. The case study works for MO on transferability + FAA-vehicle filtering + cumulative counterclaim leverage.
Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 (Wis. Cir. Ct., dismissed without prejudice April 9, 2026).
Action plan
Days 1-2 — TIER IDENTIFICATION CHECK FIRST. Identify court tier from the case caption: Small Claims (≤$5,000) APPEARANCE-BASED, no written Answer; Associate Circuit ($5,001-$25,000) APPEARANCE-BASED for most case types; Circuit Court (>$25,000) requires written Answer within 30 days under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25. For appearance-based tiers, mark the hearing date; for Circuit Court, set working deadline at Day 27. Examine the petition for Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 compliance — has the plaintiff recited verbatim or attached the assignment(s) and other written ownership documents? Missing documentation supports Rule 55.22(d) sua-sponte dismissal.
Days 3-4 — Don't pay anything. Pre-expiry partial payment can restart the SOL clock under common-law revival principles. Pull the cardholder agreement — check for arbitration clause. CRITICAL: if present, the FAA-vehicle requirement applies. Motion to compel must be filed under 9 U.S.C. § 4, NOT Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355.
Days 5-10 — Pull credit reports, identify last payment date, identify the original creditor's state of incorporation. Run the SOL math under § 516.120(1) (5 years) AND § 516.190 borrowing (3 years for Delaware/NC/VA-headquartered issuers — Discover, Barclays, Comenity / Bread Financial, TD Bank USA, PNC; Bank of America; Capital One). If Delaware/NC/VA issuer AND last payment 3+ years ago, dispositive SOL defense via § 516.190. If SD/Utah/OH issuer AND last payment 5+ years ago, dispositive SOL defense via § 516.120(1).
Days 11-22 — Decide between Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27(a)(6) motion to dismiss and Answer (Circuit Court) OR appearance preparation (lower tiers). Rule 55.27(a)(6) motion is right when SOL is dispositive on the face OR Rule 55.22 defects appear (missing assignment recital or attachment). The motion tolls the 30-day Answer deadline. Cite Rule 55.22(d) for facial-pleading dismissal — note courts may also dismiss SUA SPONTE under Rule 55.22(d). If Answer route, plead with specificity affirmative defenses (SOL under § 516.120(1) plus § 516.190 borrowing; Rule 55.22 non-compliance; lack of standing) and counterclaims (MMPA under § 407.025 with Jackson v. Barton citation, prayer for actual + discretionary punitives capped at greater of $500K or 5× actual; FDCPA under § 1692k for actual + $1,000 statutory + uncapped federal-court fees).
Days 23-30 (Circuit Court) or hearing date (lower tiers) — File or APPEAR. e-File through MO Case.net or in-person at the Circuit Court clerk. § 514.040 fee waiver if eligible. Certificate of Service. Answered does not mail-file in MO — you handle filing yourself. File by Day 27, never Day 30. For appearance-based tiers, prepare arguments at the hearing covering all four defenses.
A one-page guide to your rights, your deadline, and your first three steps — specific to Missouri courts.
No spam. One email with your checklist, then occasional updates. Unsubscribe anytime.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to respond to a debt collection lawsuit in Missouri?
You have 30 days from the date you were served to file your Answer in Missouri Circuit Court under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25. Small claims and associate circuit cases require a court appearance at the hearing date rather than a written Answer. If you miss the 30-day deadline in a circuit court case, the plaintiff can move for default judgment.
What is the statute of limitations on credit card debt in Missouri?
Missouri's statute of limitations on credit card debt and open accounts is 5 years under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120. The clock runs from your last payment or last charge, whichever is later. If the debt is older than 5 years, the plaintiff may be time-barred — raise this defense in your Answer.
Can I fight a debt buyer in Missouri without a lawyer?
Yes. Missouri Circuit Court allows self-represented defendants, and small claims courts (up to $5,000) and associate circuit courts have simplified procedures. In Circuit Court, file your Answer within 30 days of service under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.25. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (effective January 1, 2018) requires debt-buyer complaints to attach — or recite verbatim — both the assignment documents AND the underlying contract; failure supports dismissal under Rule 55.22(d). If your cardholder agreement has an arbitration clause, file your motion to compel under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (FAA) rather than Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355, because Missouri's UAA excludes adhesion contracts but the FAA preempts that exclusion.
What defenses do I have against a debt buyer in Missouri?
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 (effective January 1, 2018) requires debt-buyer complaints to attach — or recite verbatim — both the assignment documents AND the underlying contract. Failure supports dismissal under Rule 55.22(d). Additionally, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.010-407.130) provides a fee-shifted counterclaim for deceptive collection practices, per Jackson v. Barton.
What happens if I ignore a debt collection lawsuit in Missouri?
If you do not respond to a circuit court case within 30 days, the plaintiff can obtain a default judgment. Missouri allows judgment creditors to garnish bank accounts and, in some cases, wages. The judgment is valid for 10 years and renewable.
Does Missouri have any special protections for debt collection defendants?
Yes. Missouri's Supreme Court Rule 55.22 requires full chain-of-title documentation attached to the complaint — one of the strongest facial-pleading rules for debt-buyer cases. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act provides a fee-shifted private right of action for deceptive collection. One important note: if your credit card agreement has an arbitration clause, file your motion to compel under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (the Federal Arbitration Act), not Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355, because Missouri's UAA excludes adhesion contracts but the FAA preempts that exclusion.
Get started
Enter the case basics from your summons. Answered drafts your filing-formatted Answerfirst, then lets you upload papers later for deeper proof issue scanning.
Common plaintiffs
The most active debt buyers and original creditors suing Missouri consumers right now. Each link goes to a state-specific defense guide for that plaintiff.
Portfolio Recovery Associates
PRA Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAA), publicly-traded, headquartered in Norfolk, VA. One of the two largest US debt buyers. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order ($19M consumer redress + $8M civil money penalty) and a 2023 follow-up action ($24M settlement). The twin consent orders are unusually strong admissible evidence against any active MO PRA petition because they document the documentation gaps that Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 makes dispositive at the pleading stage and Jackson v. Barton makes actionable as MMPA violations under the "in connection with" doctrine. Note: MO does not have a PRA-specific plaintiff-generated binding authority like KY's Conway v. PRA or VA's Green v. PRA — but Jackson v. Barton operates as plaintiff-generated authority against any debt-collector defendant.
LVNV Funding LLC
Sherman Financial Group / Resurgent Capital Services. Multi-layer corporate structure (Sherman Originator III → Sherman Acquisition → Resurgent → LVNV) creates particular weakness under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22 chain-of-assignment requirements — every link in the assignment chain must be documented through the petition's recital or attachment, and the multi-step Sherman chain compounds the documentation burden. Rule 55.22(d) sua-sponte dismissal authority means MO courts may dismiss non-compliant LVNV petitions on their own initiative. The 2022 CFPB consent order against Resurgent ($1M civil money penalty for collecting on debts disputed via Identity Theft Reports) is admissible evidence in MO MMPA + FDCPA counterclaims under Jackson v. Barton.
Midland Credit Management
Encore Capital Group (NASDAQ:ECPG), publicly-traded, headquartered in San Diego. The largest US debt buyer by acquisition volume. Files in MO under both Midland Funding LLC (holder) and Midland Credit Management (servicer). Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement against Encore Capital Group has produced two orders totaling approximately $67 million: In re Encore Capital Group, Inc., 2015-CFPB-0022 (Sept. 9, 2015) — $52 million ($42M consumer refunds + $10M civil penalty + $125M+ collection halt) — and CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (entered Oct. 16, 2020), Case No. 3:20-cv-01750 (S.D. Cal.) — $15 million civil penalty + $79,308.81 consumer redress, with findings of approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and approximately 425,000 letters missing required disclosures. Separately, Missouri joined the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland $6 million Assurance of Voluntary Compliance under then-Attorney General Josh Hawley, which provides up to $1,850 in judgment balance credits for qualifying consumers who had a judgment taken against them between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009, disputed the debt with Midland before the lawsuit, and never made a payment. The CFPB findings (approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and approximately 425,000 missing-disclosure letters) and the multistate AVC's required reforms to Midland's affidavit and account-documentation practices document the documentation-gap pattern that supports MO MMPA pleadings under Jackson v. Barton — Rule 55.22 makes those gaps dispositive without depending on AG involvement in the federal CFPB order.
Related reading
Start with the plaintiff-specific guides we have for people sued in Missouri. Each link below goes to a state-specific defense guide for that plaintiff.
Free Missouri paper scan
30 days to answer. Answer Packet first.
Self-help software, not a law firm.