Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 140
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 140.530 (2026)

Invalidity of sale, when

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  140.530.  Invalidity of sale, when. — No sale or conveyance of land for taxes shall be valid if at the time of being listed such land shall not have been liable to taxation, or, if liable, the taxes thereon shall have been paid before sale, or if the description is so imperfect as to fail to describe the land or lot with reasonable certainty and for the first two enumerated causes, the money paid by the purchaser at such void sale shall be refunded, with interest, out of the county treasury, on order of the county commission.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 11156)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1953–2004 · leading case: Stadium West Props., L.L.C. v. Johnson, 133 S.W.3d 128 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stadium West Props., L.L.C. v. Johnson, 133 S.W.3d 128 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “The foundational statute is § 140.530, RSMo 2000, which says, in relevant part: No sale or conveyance of land for taxes shall be valid if at the time of being listed .”
McCready v. Southard, 671 S.W.2d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Finally, defendants purport to rely on § 140.530 and Costello v. City of St. Louis, 262 S.”
Podlesak v. Wesley, 849 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “002 1 *730 Plaintiffs filed suit to quiet title, alleging that the collector’s deed was void ab initio because the description was so imperfect that it failed to describe the land conveyed with reasonable certainty as required by § 140.530. 2 The petition also alleged that…”
Costello v. City of St. Louis, 262 S.W.2d 591 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 6× “" Section 140.530 provides that, "No sale or conveyance of land for taxes shall be valid if at the time of being listed * * * the description is so imperfect as to fail to describe the land or lot with reasonable certainty".”
Ijames v. Geiler, 783 S.W.2d 934 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff sought to set aside defendant’s deeds pursuant to § 140.530 RSMo. 1986 on the grounds that the legal description of the property as stated in the notices of sale, collector’s deed and the trustee’s deed did not describe the property with reasonable certainty.”
Moise v. Robinson, 533 S.W.2d 234 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “They rely on § 140.530, RSMo 1969, and Huber v. Pickier, 94 Mo.”
Braun v. Petty, 31 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “As to their first argument with regard to the validity of the collector’s deed, they contend that the sale was invalid under section 140.530, RSMo (1994), which provides in relevant part: “No sale or conveyance of land for taxes shall be valid if .”
Leuck v. Russell, 632 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “590 RSMo Was Tolled In That Defendants’ Collector’s Deed Was Void On Its Face For The Reasons That The Collector’s Deed Failed To Describe The Land Conveyed With Reasonable Certainty Pursuant To Section 140.530 RSMo, And The Collector’s Deed Failed To Convey The Real Estate So…”
Basye v. Fayette R-III Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 150 S.W.3d 111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “the description is so imperfect as to fail to describe the land or lot with reasonable certainty...”
Manard v. Snyder Bros. Co., 964 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “to be invalid under section 140.530, RSMo 1994, that the subsequent conveyance of the collector’s deed was prohibited by section 140.”
Ruley v. Drey, 643 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “As plaintiff’s petition acknowledges, the description in plaintiff’s deed and defendant’s deed, while different in language, both described the same land.”
Firma, Inc. v. Twillman, 126 S.W.3d 790 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to § 140.530 RSMo 2000, 5 “no sale or conveyance of land for taxes shall be valid if .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.