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

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 140.590 (2026)

Suits against purchaser of tax lands to be brought within three years

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  140.590.  Suits against purchaser of tax lands to be brought within three years. — Any suit or proceeding against the tax purchaser, his heirs or assigns, for the recovery of lands sold for taxes, or to defeat or avoid a sale or conveyance of lands for taxes, except in cases where the taxes have been paid or the land was not subject to taxation, or has been redeemed as provided by law, shall be commenced within three years from the time of recording the tax deed, and not thereafter; provided, that where the person claiming to own such land shall be an infant, or an incapacitated person, then such suit may be brought at any time within two years after the removal of such disability.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 11177, A.L. 1983 S.B. 44 & 45)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 9964; 1919 § 12954; 1909 § 11506a

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1951–2012 · leading case: Braun v. Petty, 129 S.W.3d 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Braun v. Petty, 129 S.W.3d 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “See section 140.590. On appeal, however, this Court noted that a deed with an insufficient description of the property is void on its face and does not start the running of this limitation period.”
Braun v. Petty, 31 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition on the grounds (1) that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and (2) that section 140.590, RSMo (1994), the applicable statute of limitations, barred plaintiffs’ action to set aside the…”
Gilliam v. Gohn, 303 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. 1957). · cites it 11× “The motions to dismiss were based upon the grounds: (1) that the amended petition did not allege facts upon which the relief prayed, or any relief, could he granted; (2) that it did not allege facts sufficient in law to entitle plaintiffs to any relief; and, (3) that the…”
Klorner v. Nunn, 318 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. 1958). · cites it 11× “Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the second amended petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and because the action was barred by the three year special statute of limitations, Section 140.590 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The motion was sustained…”
Basye v. Fayette R-III Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 150 S.W.3d 111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Braun held that if the land description in a tax deed is void on its face, it does not start the running of the three year statute of limitations, section 140.590, for challenging a sale of land for taxes.”
Harpagon Mo, LLC v. Bosch, 370 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 2× “Further, § 140.590, RSMo 2000, allows a suit seeking recovery of lands sold for taxes “within three years from the time of recording of the tax deed” demonstrating that the issuance and subsequent recording of the deed does not prevent an owner from later reacquiring property…”
Costello v. City of St. Louis, 262 S.W.2d 591 (Mo. 1953). · cites it 4× “In its answer the defendant city, after certain factual admissions, and certain denials, pleaded the three-year statute of limitations, Section 140.590, and other matters. Defendant filed also its cross-bill in which it prayed to have the title to the property quieted in the…”
Heppler v. Esther, 534 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “The answer, after denying certain portions of the petition, alleged that the action was barred by § 140.590 V.A.M.S. That statute, with exceptions not here involved, provides: “Any suit .”
Leuck v. Russell, 632 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “It reads as follows: “The Trial Court Erred In Sustaining Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss At The Close Of Plaintiffs’ Evidence Because *42 The Special Three-Year Statute of Limitations of Section 140.590 RSMo Was Tolled In That Defendants’ Collector’s Deed Was Void On Its Face For…”
Evans v. Brussel, 300 S.W.2d 442 (Mo. 1957). · cites it 2× “Section 140.590 provides that any suit against a tax purchaser “for the recovery of lands sold for taxes, or to defeat or avoid a sale or conveyance of lands for taxes [except in certain specified cases as to which there are no allegations in this petition] shall be commenced…”
Hunott v. Critchlow, 285 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 4× “Defendants contend plaintiffs’ attack on the tax sales and deeds should have been instituted within three years after the recording of the tax deed in 1939 under § 140.590, which so provides “* * except in cases where the taxes havé been paid or the land was not subject to…”
Wayward, Inc. v. Shafer, 936 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “were barred by the statute of limitations contained in § 140.590 RSMo 1994. The motion for summary judgment was accompanied by a memorandum in support.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.